Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sivasankara Pillai B vs D/O Post on 8 August, 2017
•
•
1
OA 661 o/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
OA No.180/00661/2016
Tuesday this the 8th day of August, 2017
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sivasankara Pillai. B
S/o Velayudhan, aged 70, residing at
Thazchezhuthu Kizhakkathil, Kunnimmel Cheri,
AlattuKavu Nagar, No.181, Kavanat PO
Shakthikulangara Village
Kollam District. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. M.R. Hariraj)
Vs.
I Union of India, represented by the Secretary
to Government of India, Department of Posts,
New Delhi-110 001.
2 Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
3 Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Kollam-69100 I.
... Respondents
(By Advocates Mr. K. Kesavankutty, ACGSC)
This application having been finally heard on 31. 7.2017, the Tribunal on
8.8.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Shivasankaran Pillai, who is a retired employee of the Postal Department has filed this 0.A against the recovery of interest paid out == l • 2 QA 661 of2016 to a Kissan Vikas Patra (KVP). beneficiary. The relief sought in the OA is as follows:
"To stay Annexure Al, A2 and A3 and letter No.CO/LC/3/WP(C)/09 dated 10.9.2009 of second respondent, and to direct the respondents not to make any further recovery from the applicant based on the said orders."
2. The facts of the case are as below:-
The applicant retired as Sub Post Master, Shakthikulanga under the third respondent on 30.11.2006. While he was working as Postal Assistant in Kavanad in 2001, a KVP was issued in the name of . "' Secretary, West Quilon Service Cooperative Bank. When the deposit matured, the department refused to pay the due . amount to the beneficiary on the ground that KVP could be issued only to individuals. The cooperative society thereupon approached the Hon'ble High Court and obtained a direction to get the matured amount including interest released. A true copy of the judgment is at Annexure A4.
3. Respondent No.3 issued the communication at Annexure Al dated 17.8.2009 calling upon the applicant to pay the interest on the above mentioned deposit within a month of the said order. The liability on this score was estimated at Rs. 50,000/-. This communication was followed by Annexure A2 dated 14.9.2009 indicating that the amount • 3 OA 661 o/2016 will be adjusted from the arrears due to the applicant on implementatiQn of the 6th Central Pay Commission report. Respondent No.3 followed it up with a communication at Annexure A3 dated 31. 7.2015 informing that a sum of Rs. 18556/- had already been adjusted from the applicant's dues and a further sum remaining out of Rs. 50,000/ viz. Rs. 31,444./- is required to be remitted urgently to the respondent's credit. Annexures Al, A2 and A3 are assailed through this OA. The applicant.petitioned the respondents on more than one occasion requesting that the recovery effected so many years after his retirement and alleged cause of action may be refunded and further recovery stopped. He was not favoured with a reply.
4. By way of grounds, the applicant argues that recovery is being effected without any procedure, he having not been given any notice or opportunity. No loss has occurred to the Government as a result of his action. The only irregularity that he can be accused of is that KVP is meant to be issued only in the name of a private individual which was not done in this case.
5. Per contra the respondents have filed a detailed statement in whichthe facts of the case have been reiterated. The primary contention taken is that the KVP Scheme does not envisage issue of Patra to a banking institution and the applicant as well as the Sub Post Master, > l • 4 OA 661of2016 who is not a party in the case, have been proceeded against for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- each. The scheme clearly does not permit the action taken by the applicant. It was for this reason that a considered view was taken to recover the amount of interest. The procedure involved is clearly detailed in Annexures RI and R2 and the applicant has deviated from the same.
6. Shri MR Hariraj, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant. He argued that the proceedings instituted against the applicant is violative of the principles of natural justice. The cause of action and the role of the applicant occurred during 2001 and the recovery is ordered in 2015. Considering the fact that he had retired from service in 2006, recovery ordered and partly enforced has brought great hardship to the applicant. In so far as the action taken is concerned, it is also violative of the circular issued by the Department of Posts dated 30.12.2009 [Annexure A8 (i)] which lays down that action against officials responsible for financial loss sustained by the Government is to be taken only after completion of disciplinary action and award of penalty. None of these procedures have been followed in this case and the respondents have resorted to recovery against the applicant several years after his retirement. Also most importantly recovery is violative of the principles laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Rafique Masih (White \ • 5 OA 661 of2016 Washer' - (2015) 4 SCC 334. Also, no loss has occurred to the Government.
· 7. Shri K.Kesavankutty, ACGSC appeared on behalf of the respondents. He argued. that since a serious procedural impropriety has been committed by the applicant the respondents had fixed part of interest liability caused to the Government after due internal process. This is part of the initiative taken up by the department to regularize the irregular issue of Savings instruments and the applicant had been given due notice as is evidenced by the impugned orders.
8. I have gone through the pleadings and the documents submitted. There are two facts which are clear in the case. Firstly the share of responsibility cast on the applicant for the interest paid out has been estimated several years after the cause of action and is arrived at without due process. Even the methodology by which a sum of Rs. 50,0001- had been arrived at as due from the applicant is not clear. Secondly as the part recovery as well as threat of further recovery is being resorted to against a retired employee, there is no doubt that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer' - (2015) 4 SCC 334 will hold the ground. The facts being so I conclude that the OA has merit and is allowed. The interim order issued on 2.8.2016 is made absolute. Along l • 6 OA 661 o/2016 with this it is ordered that a sum of Rs.18556/- ~lready recovered from the applicant will be refunded to the applicant along with interest at applicable PF rates as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; No order as to costs.
. b .'
·.. .
.-... E.K. Bll~ BHUSHAN.
·. ~
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
KS PPS
Applicant's Annexures
1. Annexure A 1 A true copy ofMemo No.SB/82 dated 17.8.2009 of third
respondent.
2. Annexure A2 A true copy of Memo No.SB 82109 dated 14.9.2009.
3. Annexure A3 A true copy of Order No.SB/82 dated 31. 7.2015;
4. Annexure A 4 A true copy ofjudgment dated 27.5.2009 in WP(C)
600312009 of the Hon'ble High Court ofKera/a.
5. Annexure A5 A true copy of representation dated 17.9.2009.
6. Annexure A6 A true copy of representation dated 17.9.2009. \
7. Annexure A 7 A true copy of representation dated 20.10.2009
8. Annexure AB A true copy of Order No.65-0212009-SB dated 30.12.2009.
9. Annexure A9 A true copy of representation dated 1.4.2010. 1O.AnnexureA10 A true copy of representation dated 11.10.2010.
11.Annexure A 11 A true copy of representation dated 17.3.2015.
Respondents' Annexures
1. Annexure Rl True copy of letter No.61-41/88-SB dated 29.9.1989.
-2. Annexure R2 True copy of letter No.61-6188-SB dated 20122.11.1989 . ,, ..
7
OA 661 o/2016 ofMinistry ofFinance ..
3. Annexure R3 True copy ofletter No.6-3912000-SB dated 3. 7.2001 of the Ministry ofFinance.
4. Annexure R4 True copy ofstatement dated l 9.10. 2009 given by the applicant.
5. Annexure R4(a) True copy ofEnglish tran,slation ofAnnexure R4.
6. Annexure R5 True copy ofacknowledgment of the applicant in token ofhavingreceivedthe copies of the relevant documents.
7. Annexure R6 True copy of the extract ofRule No. (2) under Rule 62 of the Post Offices Small Savings Scheme by A.N. Dureija's . Ruling Part Ill under Chapter 18.