Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Lakma Ram Prajapat vs M/O Communications on 14 March, 2019
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH
...
Original Application No.290/000020/2017
Reserved on : 06.03.2019
Prounced on : 14.03.2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P.SHAH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. ARCHANA NIGAM, MEMBER (A)
Lakma Ram Prajapat s/o Shri Harji Ram, aged about 56
years, b/c Kumhar, R/o Vill+ Po Umedabad, District- Jalore
(Office Address:- Employed as APM Jalore HO under SPO,
Sirohi division, Sirohi)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.P.Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of
India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
3. The Postmaster General, Western Region Rajasthan,
Jodhpur
4. Director of Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General,
Western Region, Jodhpur.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sirohi Division, Sirohi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri K.S.Yadav)
2
ORDER
The applicant has filed the present OA u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following reliefs:
(i) The impugned order Memo No. STA/WR/44-A/50/2016 dated 10.10.2016 forwarded by respondent No.4 (Annexure-A/1) and Memo No.F7-1//Lakma Ram SBLC/2013-14 dated 14.6.2016 forwarded by respondent No.5 (Annexure A/2) may kindly be declared illegal, unjust, improper and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That by writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the recovered amount with interest @ 18% pa.
(iii) That by writ order or direction the impugned order Memo No. F7-01/Lakma Ram SBLC/2013-14 dated 1.3.2016 may kindly be declared illegal, improper and deserves to be quashed and set aisde.
(iv) That any other direction or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.
(v) That the costs of this application may be awarded to the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that while he was posted at Jalore HO as SBLC SO under SPO, Sirohi, a fraud to the tune of Rs. 23500/- was detected at TSO Industrial Area, committed by Shri Ganpat Singh Deora, the then SPM. The said amount is misappropriated by Shri Ganpat Singh Deora and Shri Ramesh Gehlot, the SAS. The amount is not recovered from the main culprit or the co-offender but the same is recovered from the applicant. The respondents admit that 3 CBI inquiry is in progress and the civil trial is also continued. The applicant avers that the amount was in entrustment of SPM and the misappropriation is done by the SPM then how the total amount is recovered from the applicant, who was working at Jalore HO and he has no duty to compare signature of withdrawal in MIS and RD accounts because the misappropriation is done in MIS and RD accounts. Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) were initiated and a chargesheet dated 01.03.2016 is served on the applicant. The applicant submitted representation dated 10.3.2016 (Ann.A/4). Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority vide Memo dated 14.6.2016 imposed penalty to recover the amount of Rs. 23500/- from the pay of the applicant in two equal instalments of Rs. 11750/- per month commencing from the month of July, 2016. The applicant filed appeal against the punishment order and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.10.2016 confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant avers that the respondents did not correctly assess the amount and charge sheet is issued without mentioning the loss caused by the applicant. The respondents also did not comply with Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, which clearly reveals that the 4 compelling circumstances and specific reasons is to be recorded in writing and quantum of amount is to be fixed after correctly assessing the same with clear finding on fixing his liability, but nothing has been done. The respondents have not recovered the amount from the delinquent who committed misappropriation, but the applicant is compelled to deposit the amount forcibly. The applicant preferred appeal but the appellate authority also did not take into account the fact that the applicant is working in SB Account and the misappropriation is committed in MIS & RD Accounts by Shri Ganpat Singh Deora, the then SPM, Industrial Area, Jalore. The respondents did not prove the fault of the applicant and punished him merely on suspicion and on the basis of presumption which is evident from the charge sheet and relied upon the case of Kuldip Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors, (1999) 2 SCC 10. The applicant has also stated that the respondents did not consider Rule-106 and Rule 107 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol.I. He has also relied upon the order arising out of similar controversy passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.156/2011 B.L.Verma vs. Union of India; order passed in OA No.252/2012 in the case of Sunil Kumar Joshi vs. Union 5 of India and ors. against which DB Civil Writ Petition No.1695/2014 was filed which was dismissed and thereafter the SLP (CC) No.673/2015 before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2015. He further relied upon the order dated 29.8.2013 passed by this Bench in OA No.251/2012, S.N.Singh Bhati vs. Union of India and Ors. and order dated 18.1.2013 passed in OA No.295/2011, Teja Ram Nawal vs. UOI and Ors.
3. The respondents have filed reply on 29.5.2017. They have stated that while working as Saving Bank Ledger Clerk (SB LC) during the period from 19.7.2010 to 20.7.2010 at Jalore HO, the applicant was entrusted with the duties attached to the post of SBLC and thus the applicant was supposed to check and compare the signatures/thumb impression of account holders on withdrawal form (SB-7) with sample signature of account holders available in Account Opening Form, but by performing duties negligently, the applicant failed to compare the fake signature/thumb impression on withdrawal forms with the specimen signatures given at the time of opening the account in SB-3 form. Had the applicant remained vigilant about his duties such fraud and misappropriation of huge public money could have been unearthed at initial stage. 6 The applicant being subsidiary offender was served with the charge sheet dated 1.3.2016 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which was replied by the applicant. Considering the reply in detail, the Disciplinary Authority found the charges proved and vide order dated 14.6.2016 imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 23,500/- from the pay of the applicant in two instalments of Rs. 11750/- each commencing from July, 2016. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 14.6.2016, the applicant preferred appeal, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2016 in a fair and reasoned manner. Each and every contention raised by the applicant in his appeal has been considered by the Appellate Authority, but the explanation given by the applicant has not been found appropriate and thus the same has been turned down and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed.
4. The applicant has not filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the applicant.
5. We have heard the learned counsels of both parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The issue involved in this OA is not res-integra and the same has already been decided by this Bench of the 7 Tribunal in various OAs as well as by other Benches of this Tribunal. In B.L.Verma vs. Union of India and Ors., OA No.156/2011 decided on 22.5.2012, this Tribunal has held that after having issued charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the penalty of recovery could have been ordered by the respondents only as an exceptional case, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and the delinquent Government servant should have had a reasonable opportunity of being heard regarding the exceptional and compelling circumstances, on the basis of which such recovery was being ordered. In Sunil Kumar Joshi Vs. UOI & Ors., OA No.252/2012, decided on 29.08.2013 this Bench on the same analogy quashed impugned recovery order and the OA was allowed. The respondents thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Hon'ble High Court has also dismissed the WP No.1695/2014, challenging the order of this Tribunal in the said OA vide judgment dated 20.03.2014. The SLP (CC) No.673/2015, filed by the respondents in the said WP, stands dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2015. In the case of Ram Lal vs. Union of India, OA No.134/2016 decided on 1.8.2018, this Bench of the Tribunal in a similar matter quashed the impugned order and the respondents were 8 directed to refund the amount already recovered from the applicant. In OA No.251/2012- S.N.Singh Bhati vs. Union of India, this Bench has already taken a view that as per Rule 11 of 1965 Rules, penalty of recovery can be imposed only in exceptional circumstances and for special reasons to be recorded in writing. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan by way of DB Civil Writ Petition No.2494/2014 and the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 4th April, 2014 upheld the view taken by this Tribunal and the same was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 17525/2015 vide order dated 1.12.2017.
7. Applying the above ratio to the present facts and circumstances of the case, without going into elaborate discussions, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are required to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order dated 14.6.2016 (Ann.A/1), appellate order dated 10.10.2016 (Ann.A/2) and charge sheet dated 01.03.2016 (Ann.A/3) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount already recovered from the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the respondents are not 9 precluded from proceeding against the applicant in accordance with law.
8. The OA stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
(ARCHANA NIGAM) (HINA P.SHAH)
ADMV. MEMBER JUDL. MEMBER
R/