Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Mary Abraham vs The Secretary Department Of Posts New ... on 20 November, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/0323/2019
Monday, this the 20th day of November, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mary Abraham, W/o Abraham P.M., aged 62 years,
Retired SPM Anickkad - 686503, Department of Posts,
residing at Kottoor Vadakethil, Pampady P.O.,
Kottayam - 686502.
-Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr. V Sajith Kumar]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to
Government of India, Department of Posts,
Government of India, New Delhi-110001
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-
695 033
3. The Post Master General, Central Region, Kochi - 682 024.
4. The Superintendent of Post Office, Chananassery Postal
Division, Changanassery - 686 101.
- Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr.N.Anilkumar, SPC]
2
The applications having been heard on 12.09.2023, the Tribunal
on 20.11.2023 passed the following:
O R D E R
The applicant is a retired Sub Postmistress from Changanassery Postal Division of the Department of Posts. She entered service as an RTP employee in 1982, later got absorbed in 1990 and retired from service on 30.11.2016. She claims that she had an unblemished service record. But from 17.9.2007 to 29.5.2011, while she was working as Sub Postmaster at Velloor Post Office, on account of the fraud committed by Smt.Vinokumari, an MPKBY Agent at Velloor Post Office, she had to face disciplinary proceedings. It is a Class II Post Office, but the applicant herself had to manage the business alone. MPKBY Agent Smt.Vinokumari committed suicide on 20.10.2010 along with her husband and daughter. Till that time, there was no complaint against this agent. She had substantial business under MPKBY Agency (Recurring Deposits) and monthly income schemes, KVP and other small savings schemes.
3
2. Though there was no public complaint against her till her death, after the death, complaints surfaced and the Department commenced investigation. The fraud was basically facilitated because of the over confidence of the depositors in the agent; pass books and other deposit documents were in the custody of the agent, which is against the strict instructions to the depositors. Pass books were available with the agent; she was familiar with the specimen signatures of the depositors, thus she managed to withdraw money by forging signatures. KYC norms were introduced in the Department only in 2012. Even though there were departmental instructions prohibiting NRIs subscribing to certain National Savings Schemes, in violation of norms, the NRIs deposited amounts through the agent. MPKBY/SAS agents are appointed by the State Government without ensuring adequate security.
3. After detecting series of frauds committed by Smt.Vinokumari, the 4th respondent reported the matter to the District Collector, Kottayam to explore the possibility of attaching the 4 properties owned by the late agent. However, the District Collector has not yet taken any action. According to the applicant, she was handling the Post Office single-handedly. There was heavy workload and she could not notice marked difference in the signatures of the depositors. The difference in signatures, if any, was not detected by the Head Office when they had cross-checked the same. Some of the depositors had approached the Consumer Redressal Forum, but all such petitions were dismissed, finding that there was no evidence of deficiency in service.
4. Now, some of the depositors have filed five separate suits before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam in which the applicant had also been made party. She is contesting the suits on her behalf as the Department disowned vicarious liability. The applicant was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. After retirement, the enquiry continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Later, the matter was referred to the UPSC and in Annexure A-3 report, the Commission suggested withholding of 10% of her monthly pension otherwise admissible to her for a period of one year. It was further 5 directed that her gratuity, if not otherwise required to be withheld in any other case, may be released. Even though the applicant made representation to drop the proceedings, ultimately such a punishment was imposed on her. Despite the order to release her gratuity, entire amount of gratuity, fixed medical allowance and commutation of pension have not yet been released to her. She made Annexure A-4 to Annexure A-6 representations, which have not yet been considered.
5. According to the applicant, non-release of the retirement benefits in terms of the advice of the UPSC is highly arbitrary and unjust as the UPSC had found that there were only supervisory lapses on her part, that there is no evidence to suggest that herself was actively involved in the fraud and benefitted from the same. There was only acts of omission rather than commission on her part. Despite the above observations, there is no justification for not releasing her pensionary benefits. She has not been involved in any other case, no other proceedings is initiated against her. She has huge financial liabilities. Expecting retiral benefits she had borrowed huge amount from her friends and relatives in connection with the marriage of her 6 daughter. She is also undergoing treatment for nervous disorders. Therefore, she seeks a direction to the respondents to implement Annexure A-3 by releasing all the consequential benefits including gratuity, fixed medical allowance, commutation of pension etc. with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
6. On behalf of the respondents, the Superintendent of Post Offices, the 4th respondent filed a reply statement challenging the very maintainability of the Original Application. The service records of the applicant are not in dispute. During the period when the applicant was the Sub Postmaster at Velloor Post Office from 1.4.2007 to 31.4.2011, the said Vinokumari, MPKBY Agent had committed fraud for Rs.49,02,300/- in various Savings Bank Accounts, Monthly Income Scheme accounts and Recurring Deposit Accounts in that Post Office. Later, on 20.10.2010, she along with her husband and daughter committed suicide. The fraud was detected a month after the commission of suicide when some of the depositors who had entrusted their money with the agent, began enquiring about their accounts. Investigations revealed that in some cases the late agent had 7 forged the signatures of the depositors in the withdrawal forms for committing the fraud and in some cases she has misused the blank withdrawal forms bearing the signatures of the depositors. Investigation revealed that an amount of Rs.11,66,916/- was misappropriated from 24 accounts by using the signed withdrawal forms obtained from the depositors by the agent. In those cases, the depositors admitted that they had given the blank withdrawal forms duly signed by them to the agent. In 17 cases, the agent had misappropriated a sum of Rs.37,35,384/- from various Savings Bank accounts, Recurring Deposits and Monthly Income accounts. Of this Rs.37,35,384/-, while working as Sub Postmaster, Velloor Sub Post Office the applicant had warranted the payment of a sum of Rs.32,14,051/-. In all these cases, the depositors have disowned their signatures on the closure/withdrawal vouchers and stated that they had not attended the Post Office and collected the money.
7. According to the respondents, forensic examination reports of two cases involving a sum of Rs.6,84,527/- revealed that the signatures were forged and thus fraud was established. The forensic 8 examination results in other cases are awaited.
8. Disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the applicant alleging serious lapses on her part citing two instances. Thus, she was charged with violation of Rules 23, 113(ii)(a) and 115 (2)(a) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I. During the pendency of Rule 14 proceedings, since she retired from service, it was continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. She was found guilty and punishment of withholding 10% of her monthly pension for a period of one year was imposed as stated in Annexure A-3.
9. According to the respondents, even though the said Vinokumari is the principal offender, the applicant is identified as the subsidiary-offender. Had the applicant followed the procedures as laid down in the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I during the opening of new accounts and in sanctioning closure and withdrawal of payments, this fraud for an amount of Rs.32,14,051/- would not have happened. Losses had occurred for such an amount with interest from 2009 onwards, due to the negligence of duty of the applicant. The 4 th 9 respondent has initiated action for revenue recovery from the property owned by the applicant on 17.11.2016. Even though the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court with Writ Petition(C) 1600/2017, by judgment dated 8.7.2019, the High Court has permitted to go ahead with the revenue recovery proceedings. She is also defendant in four Civil Suits, O.S No.285/14 filed by Smt.Minimol Thankachan before the civil court Kottayam claiming Rs.2,77,833/-; on the dismissal of the suit by the Munsiff, AS 225/2017 has been preferred before the District Court. She is also a defendant in O.S 32/2014 filed by Sri.Kurian Thomas before the Sub Court Kottayam claiming Rs.7,81,757/-, that suit was dismissed for default. However, restoration petition has been filed. Similarly, in O.S 136/14 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, Smt.Ruby Kurian has claimed an amount of Rs.5,03,034/- and that suit was also dismissed for default and restoration petition is pending. The applicant is also a defendant in O.S 711/2015 filed by Sri.T.P.Mathew before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam claiming Rs.3,93,770/-. In another case, Shri.Mathias K.Thomas filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.19158/2012 before the High Court against the 10 Postmaster General, claiming Rs.3,50,000/- with interest, which is pending.
10. Respondents also contended that gratuity of the applicant is calculated to be Rs.7,02,780/- which will not be sufficient to adjust the loss sustained due to the fault/negligence of the applicant. As court cases and claims are pending to be settled, the retirement benefits of the applicant cannot be disbursed. However, the applicant has been granted provisional pension which is being paid to her.
11. According to the respondents, Annexure A-3 does not absolve all her financial responsibilities of misconduct. The loss sustained by the depositors have to be made good. As the principal offender is no more, liability has to be shouldered by the subsidiary- offender. Even if revenue recovery proceeding against the property of the principal offender is materialized, the cost of eight cents of her land may not be sufficient to make good the loss.
12. Referring to relevant provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I, Clause 5 of Appendix 4 of Financial Hand Book Volume I, respondents have submitted that the applicant has to bear 11 the proportionate loss.
13. According to the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal on a wrong inference that by Annexure A-3 she stands absolved of all liabilities. That is incorrect. The enquiry revealed that she had illegally facilitated opening of deposits by NRI personnel, accepted accounts through the agents and failed to verify the addresses of depositors. She also failed to cross-check specimen signatures at the time of permitting withdrawal of amounts. She is a subsidiary offender in 34 transactions for a total amount of Rs.32,14,051/- in various savings bank accounts, recurring deposits and monthly investment accounts of that Post Office. In these circumstances, according to the respondents, the reliefs cannot be granted.
14. The applicant filed a rejoinder. Shorn of unnecessary details, she has stated that AS 225/17 filed by the said Smt.Minimol Thankachan against the judgment in O.S 285/14 of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam stands dismissed by Annexure A-7. In view of Annexure A-7, there is no further scope of any other litigation before 12 the Sub Court. She reiterated that the UPSC had clearly stated that there is only supervisory lapses on her part and that she had not gained any benefits. There is also a direction to release the gratuity, if it is not required for any other case. According to the applicant, no other case is noticed against her and Rule 9 proceedings have already been ended so that, there is no justification in detaining her retirement benefits. Referring to the Post Office Savings Bank Rules 1981, she said that it is the responsibility of the depositors to keep the passbook safe in their custody and the depositors shall be responsible for any fraudulent withdrawal made by a person obtaining possession of the passbook or cheque.
15. According to the applicant, on 22.7.2019, she had made a detailed representation to the 4th respondent, which was rejected under Annexure A-9. Thereafter, she gave Annexure A-10 representation to the 3rd respondent. Referring to Annexure A-11, she said that steps have already been initiated for attaching the property of late Vinokumari. Pursuant to the same, Pampady Block Panchayath office have made a requisition for recovering an amount of 13 Rs.98,43,818/- from the assets of Vinokumari.
16. Following the rejoinder, the respondents filed an additional reply statement. In the additional reply statement, the respondents have reiterated the contentions in the earlier reply and also controverted the averments in the rejoinder. The respondents have relied on the General Financial Rules, 2017, Annexure-R4, Rule 69 of the CSS (Pension) Rules, Annexure-R5, and copy of Government of India decision number 1 (2) below Rule 68 of the CSS (Pension) Rules,1972, Annexure-R6 and also the CCS (Commutation of Pension Rules) 1981, Annexure-R7 to buttress the contention that it is the responsibility of the respondents to compensate the loss sustained by the depositor and that the government official who is held responsible for the negligence or fraud has personal liability to make good the loss and indemnified the state for the loss.
17. Moreover, it is further stated that against Annexure-A7 judgment of the Additional District Court, Kottayam, RSA has already been filed by Smt.Minimol Thankachan, the appellant in AS 225/17 of the District Court, Kottayam before the Hon'ble High Court as RSA 14 1173/19. That RSA is pending before the High Court. The respondents also produced the copy of judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1022/14 against the order in Writ Petition (Civil) 19158/2012, by which the respondents have taken steps for recovering the loss from the defaulters by proceeding against the properties under the Revenue Recovery Act. They have also placed reliance on Annexure R-12, General Principles and Rules which also make the negligent official responsible for making good the loss sustained by the depositors.
18. In other words, according to the respondents, despite the fact that she was punished by the President of India under Annexure A3, that has nothing to do with the recovery of money lost by the depositors, the department has liability to make good the loss, the negligent officer has liability to indemnify the government and the disciplinary proceedings have nothing to do with the recovery of loss sustained by the government and making good the loss sustained by the depositors. So according to the respondents, the O.A is liable to be dismissed. So long as amounts are due and unless vigilance clearance 15 is granted, full pension cannot be granted to the applicant.
19. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
20. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the respective counsel. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant was manning a heavy post office where there should have been two staff members. But as the postmistress she was shouldering the heavy work load herself and minor faults, if any happened on her part cannot be blown out of proportion. She has already suffered for the supervisory lapses. He also pointed out from Annexure A-3 that the UPSC also found that the applicant did not try to get any financial gain, there was only supervisory lapses on her part and therefore, there is absolutely no justification in withholding her retiral benefits. Referring to the provisions in the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 he said that if the original pass book is produced, it can be considered as proper identity of the depositor. The applicant had also verified signatures in the withdrawal forms and amounts were allowed to be withdrawn only after ascertaining the genuineness of the 16 signatures. When the original pass book itself is produced, that would give sufficient assurance for the identity of the person who produced the withdrawal forms. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the 4th respondent Superintendent of Post Offices cannot work as an appellate authority over the President of India who had said that gratuity amount can be released, if it is not necessary for other purposes. Here, no other purpose has been shown by the respondents and withholding the other statutory benefits is highly illegal and liable to be interfered with.
21. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that a detailed investigation into the entire fraud committed by the said Vinokumari clearly revealed that major part of instances of such frauds were committed when the applicant was working as the Postmistress at Velloor PO. Even though the said Vinokumari is the prime culprit, applicant is the subsidiary offender who paved the way for commission of frauds to the extent of Rs.32,14,051/-. Apart from the two instances noticed in Annexure A-1 charge sheet, there are other cases also. Altogether 38 instances of 17 fraudulent transactions have been brought out and therefore, basing on Annexure A-3 itself, it is clear that the applicant is not entitled to get the retiral benefits before settlement of entire amounts due to the different depositors. Moreover, atleast 5 or 6 litigations are pending before civil courts. Therefore, highlighting the provisions of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I, Financial Hand Book, General Financial Rules, provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules etc., he urged that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief.
22. The applicant had commenced career as a Reserve Trained Postal employee and was later regularised in 1990. The alleged instances of fraudulent misappropriation of whopping sums had surfaced during her tenure at Velloor Post Office from 17.9.2007 to 29.5.2011. As came out, Vinokumari MPKBY agent, was having substantial work either in small savings deposits or monthly income scheme account or recurring deposits. She committed suicide, along with her husband and daughter, on 20.10.2010. Till that time, there was no complaint against her. But after the death, instances started coming out, one after the other. Ultimately, detailed enquiry was 18 conducted by the department and it came out that she had committed fraud in different manners either by misusing the trust reposed on her by the depositors by handing over pass-book and signed withdrawal forms or by forging signatures of the depositors. The total estimated amount of such fraud comes to Rs.49,02,300/-; . It is also submitted that the 4th respondent has already addressed the District Collector, Kottayam for proceeding against her properties for realising the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. It has been submitted that now the total amount to be collected comes more than Rs.one crore which includes interest payable to the depositors. The respondents have submitted that, being the subsidiary offender, share of the applicant comes to Rs.32,14,051/-.
23. The applicant has already retired from service on 30.11.2016. Even before that, Rule 14 proceeding was initiated against her by serving Annexure A-1 charge sheet containing two articles of allegations. During the period, she retired from service and thus, proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules continued and ultimately, the matter was referred to the UPSC and the UPSC advised 19 to impose a penalty of withholding of 10% of her monthly pension otherwise admissible to her for a period of one year. As a rider, it was also observed that 'the gratuity admissible to her may be released if not otherwise required to be withheld in any other case'. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that she is entitled to get all the retiral benefits since the amount is not required in any other case.
24. This assertion has been strongly disputed by the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that 38 instances of frauds committed by the said Vinokumari have been brought out, in which the applicant is the secondary offender. In this connection, Annexure R-3 was also highlighted by the learned Standing Counsel. Annexure R3 indicates 39 such fraudulent acts were committed by the agent during the tenure of the applicant in that Post Office.
25. Annexure A-1 charge sheet was served on the applicant only in respect of two instances of malfeasance alleged against her. In the first case, which relates to Article I, it is stated that the applicant had facilitated interim withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from 20 the recurring deposit account of one Mr.T.P.Mathew on 30.5.2009 by opening a new savings bank account. Later on 18.1.2010, another SB account was opened in the name of Sri.T.P.Mathew and Sri.Reji Abraham and a sum of Rs.2,93,770/- was allowed to be withdrawn from RD account No.27030573. Thus, the said Shri.T.P.Mathew and Shri.Reji Abraham suffered a loss of Rs.3,93,770/-.
26. In the 2nd instance, negligence on the part of the applicant has been attributed for the misappropriation of Rs.95,000/- to one Shri.Kurian Thomas in the first instance on 20.7.2009 opening a SB account. Later, on 25.9.2010 another amount of Rs. 1,95,757 was also withdrawn from his account by committing acts of fraud. Detailed departmental enquiry was followed in both the cases, the Inquiry Officer found the applicant guilty of misconduct that amounts were allowed to be withdrawn without properly verifying the specimen signatures and ultimately since the applicant had retired from service, as part of continuing the proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, the question was referred to the UPSC. Even though the UPSC found that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant had 21 actively involved in the fraud and had benefitted from the same, the proved charges constitute acts of omission rather than commission on her part, that she did not exercise due diligence in opening the accounts and for clearing the cheques. It is also observed that the charges established against her constitute grave misconduct on her part and that was how a punishment was imposed.
27. It has come out that such amounts were facilitated to be withdrawn through savings bank accounts opened on the date of submission of withdrawal applications. The definite case of the respondents is that while permitting such withdrawals, the applicant had failed to follow codal formalities. In the case of Shri.T.P.Mathew, at the time of opening the account and withdrawing the amounts, he had been abroad and the said Reji Abraham could not be located. It is the basic preliminary requirement that a savings bank account could be opened only in the presence of the person for whom the account is opened. There is no allegation that the said Vinokumari had committed any act of impersonation. That means, it has to be thought that the applicant had facilitated opening of new accounts even 22 without insisting the presence of the account holder by reposing unwanted trust on the MPKBY agent. The very same misfeasance has occurred in the 2nd instance also which is the subject matter of Article II in Annexure A-1. In both cases it was alleged that amounts were released without properly verifying specimen signatures.
28. As highlighted by the respondents and as seen in Annexure R3, 39 such instances have come to the surface in which the applicant was the official involved. In the circumstance, the submission of the applicant that she is entitled to get back gratuity and other retiral benefits as she is not involved in any other case, can be considered only to be rejected.
29. Rule 33 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I enables the official to honor a request for withdrawing the amount after seeing the pass-book and the withdrawal forms signed by the depositor. But whenever any difference is suspected in the signatures, the Counter-clerk or the Postman has to cross-check the same with the specimen signature cards up-kept in the Post Office. It is evident that such a procedure was not followed. The applicant cannot get out 23 of the liability with an excuse that she was overburdened, that she was managing the Post Office single-handedly etc. It is pointed out that there were marked visible difference in the signatures in some of the withdrawal forms honoured by the applicant. Thus, apart from the two instances for which departmental proceedings were initiated against her, there were innumerable other cases in which withdrawal was allowed by the applicant causing huge loss to the depositors. As suggested by the applicant, the respondents cannot wash off their hands simply saying that the agent was appointed by the BDO and therefore, it is the liability of the State Government to make good the loss of the depositors etc.
30. There is also substance in placing reliance on the provisions in Appendix 4 of Financial Hand Book Volume I. These provisions insist strict enforcement of personal liability of Government servants who are careless or negligent in the duties entrusted to them. Question of enforcing pecuniary liability continues even after retirement. The instructions also insist enforcing pecuniary liability, besides initiating disciplinary action. 24
31. Rule 37 of General Financial Rules 2017 reads thus:
" Responsibility of losses. An officer shall be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on his part. He will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence of any other officer to the extent to which it may be shown that he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. The departmental proceedings for assessment of responsibility for the loss shall be conducted according to the instructions contained in Appendix I and those issued by the Ministry of Personnel from time to time. "
32. Identical provision can be seen in Rule 58 of Post and Telegraph Financial Hand Book Volume I, regarding responsibility for losses, etc. which reads as follows:
"Rule 58: Every Government Officer should realize fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence on the part of any other Government Officer to the extent to which it may be shown that he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. Detailed instructions for regulating the enforcement of such responsibility will be found in Appendix 4. "25
33. Similarly there is a statutory injunction against grant of commutation of pension, during the pendency of any departmental or judicial proceedings. Rule 4 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 reads thus:
" Restriction on commutation of pension :
No government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings as referred in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, have been instituted before the date of his retirement, or the pensioner against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of his retirement, shall be eligible to commute a percentage of his provisional pension authorised under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules, or the pension as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings."
34. The applicant has already been granted provisional pension and granting of full pension has been kept in abeyance pending conclusion of proceedings initiated against her. Rule 69(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules prohibits payment of gratuity to the government servant until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. It has come out that atleast 4 suits have been initiated against the respondents and also 26 against the applicant in her personal capacity. Those are suits instituted by the depositors for realisation of money. As the respondents have disowned vicarious liability, she has to defend such proceedings in her personal capacity. Those suits are pending. Even though one suit and an appeal preferred against which were dismissed, now RSA is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Three other suits are pending before the Munsiff/Sub Court in Kottayam.
35. It is also evident that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Revenue Recovery Act; even though the applicant had called it in question by filing Writ Petition No.19158/12, that has been dismissed. That means, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against her properties as well for realising the loss sustained by the Government. Again, given the Central Government Health Service Scheme, unless such questions are settled, a pensioner cannot claim Fixed Medical Allowance as well.
36. To sum up, apart from the two instances which ended in imposing of punishment on the applicant, there are innumerable other cases in which supervisory lapses were imputed against the applicant 27 which resulted in loss to the department. The departmental proceeding has nothing to do with realization of money. The amount has been quantified as Rs.32,14,051/-. Judicial proceedings are also pending against her. The High Court has also permitted to continue with the revenue recovery steps. Moreover, quantum of money, if any, realisable from the property of the MPKBY agent is uncertain. In the circumstances and since the claim for granting her full pension is at stake, grant of gratuity, commuted value of pension etc cannot be permitted.
37. The Original Application is bereft of merits and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 20th November, 2023) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER sv 28 List of Annexures Annexure-A1: A true copy of the Charge sheet No.F/4-2/2010-11 dated 18.07.2016 issued by the 4th Respondent Annexure-A2: A true copy of the letter No.C-14016/36/2018-VP dated 24.07.2018 issued on behalf of the 1st Respondent along with the advice of the UPSC Annexure-A3 : A true copy of the Order No.C-14016/36/2018-VP dated 04.10.2018 issued on behalf of the 1st Respondent Annexure-A4: A true copy of the Representation dated 01.04.2019 submitted by the Applicant to the 3rd Respondent Annexure-A5: A true copy of the representation dated 12.11.2018 submitted by the Applicant before the 4th Respondent Annexure-A6: A true copy of the representation dated 07.04.2019 submitted by the Applicant to the 1st Respondent Annexure-A7: A true copy of the Judgment dated 25.07.2019 in AS No. 225/2018 of Additional District Court, Kottayam. Annexure-A8: A true copy of the petition dated 22.07.2019 submitted by the Applicant before the 4th Respondent.
Annexure-A9: A true copy of the order dated 18.10.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent to the Applicant.
29Annexure-A10: A true copy of the petition dated 11.11.2019 submitted by the Applicant to the 3rd Respondent. Annexure-A11: A true copy of the letter No. IN V/2-37/2010-11 dated 30.10.2018 issued by the office of the 3rd Respondent to the District Collector.
Annexure-A12: A true copy of the requisition in Form 24 dated 13.03.2019 issued by BDO Pambady.
Annexure R1: A true copy of the relevant rules of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume 1.
Annexure R2: A true copy of Appendix 4 of Financial Hand Book Volume I clause 5.
Annexure R3: A true copy of the details of the cases (including account number, name of depositor, amount involved, official involved) involving the applicant. Annexure R4: True copy of Rule 37 of General Financial Rules 2017 Annexure R5: True copy of Rule 69 (1) (c) of Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972 Annexure R6: True copy of the Govt of India Decisions No. 1(2) below Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 Annexure R7: True copy of the Rule 4 of the CCS (commutation of pension rules) 1981 Annexure R8 : True copy of the email dated 16.01.2020 of the 4th respondent to the counsel on the non-receipt of the bill and judgment, on AS 225/2017 30 Annexure R9: True copy of counsel's reply there to dated 04.03.2020, speaking of the dispatch of the bill and the certified copy of the judgment.
Annexure R10: True copy of RSA No 1173 of 2019 before Hon'ble HC of Kolkata.
Annexure R11: True copy of the orders of Hon'ble Division bench dated 30.10.2019, on WA 1022/2014.
Annexure-R12: True copy of the Rule 58 of Post and Telegraph Financial Hand Book Vol 1.
**********************