Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anandi Prasad Vishwakarma vs Union Of India on 17 January, 2014
Reserved (13.12.2013) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad Dated: This the 17th day of January 2014 Original Application No. 683 of 2011 Honble Dr. Murtaza Ali, Member J Anandi Prasad Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Raj Karan, R/o Mafi Karvi, Chitrakoot, presently posted as Postal Assistant, SBCO/HPO, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad. . . .Applicant By Adv: Sri Pankaj Srivastava V E R S U S 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001. 2. The Director, Postal Services, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Fatehgarh Division, Farrukhabad. . . . Respondents By Adv: Shri R.P. Singh O R D E R
Through this OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant seeks relief for quashing the impugned penalty order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Appellate Authority.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant in June 1980 and later-on transferred to Banda on 01.06.2006 as Postal Assistant SBCO in the office of Superintendent of Post Office, Banda Division. It has been submitted that the applicant was orally directed to work as Supervisor SBCO, Banda on 24.03.2007 where he worked upto 31.05.2009. In the meantime it has come to the notice of respondents that 04 persons namely Luxman Narain Verma, O.P. Singh, Zakir Hussain and Dele Ram are involved in RD fraud case and a Departmental Inquiry was conducted and the aforesaid employees were suspended. The applicant was transferred from Banda to Furrakhabad Division in August, 2009 and respondents issued a Charge-sheet to the applicant on 11.12.2009. The applicant demanded 11 documents in order to reply the Charge-sheet, but the respondents directed him to inspect only 06 documents and the said documents were not supplied by the respondents and in the compelling circumstances the applicant filed a detailed reply to the Charge-sheet on 14.06.2010 and denied the charges levelled against him, but without giving any opportunity of hearing the respondents passed the penalty order dated 30.09.2010 and imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,44,000/- which is to be deducted from the pay of applicant @ Rs. 6000/- per month. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 16.11.2010 before the respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed on 23.11.2011 without considering the grounds raised in the Appeal.
3. In the counter affidavit the respondents have submitted that the applicant worked as Postal Assistant Saving Bank Control Organization at Banda, Head Post Office from 01.06.2006 to 31.07.2006, 28.08.2006 to 05.12.2006 and 22.01.2007 to 23.03.2007 and he failed to check the accurance of Recurring Deposits payments made at Banda Head Office and also agreement of Binders in respect of Band a Head Office Recurring Deposits Accounts which resulted in Recurring Deposits fraud case at Head Office by way of closing the Recurring Deposit Accounts more than once and also with enhanced denomination. It has also been stated that the applicant worked as Chief Supervisor, Saving Bank Control Organization at Banda Head Office w.e.f. 24.03.2007 to 31.05.2009 and while working as such he did not make proper supervision over the work and due to the slackness in the duties of the applicant a heavy fraud in Recurring Deposits Accounts of Banda Head Office took place and the Department sustained a huge loss of Rs. 1,17,57,034.50 Paisa. It has been submitted that after detailed inquiry, 8 officials were found responsible for the said fraud and further there are 24 other officials who were the subsidiary offenders including the applicant. All the officials who were found responsible were placed under suspension or Disciplinary action were taken against them including the applicant. It has been stated that full opportunity was afforded to the applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant did not make any request for holding the inquiry as per instruction contained in the DOP&T OM dated 28.10.1985, therefore, his case was decided by the Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of the representation submitted by him. It has also been stated that entire grounds raised by the applicant in his reply were considered by the Competent Authority before passing the penalty order and the Appellate Authority after due consideration of his appeal and after carefully examining the record passed the Appellate Order.
4. Heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents placed on record.
5. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is not directly responsible for causing any pecuniary loss to the Government and 08 officials were found responsible for committing the fraud and it has been submitted by the respondents that 24 other officials were subsidiary offenders including the applicant.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited a decision of CAT, Chandigarh Bench delivered on 24.08.2009 in OA No. 459/PB/2009 Smt. Veena Mahay vs. Union of India and others alongwith some other OAs. In the said OA the only charge against the applicants was that they have not followed the procedure and were negligent in performing their duties as they had not compared the balance of SB 7 with that of SB-3 and verified the signatures of depositors. It has been held that unless the person concerned is directly responsible for misappropriating any amount or for causing any pecuniary loss to the Government, no recovery can be made from the applicants.
7. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a decision delivered by CAT, Allahabad Bench on 22.09.2011 in OA No. 497/09 Shiv Bhushan Singh vs. Union of India and others it was held that the applicant for being negligent and not careful of his duties due to which SPM PAC Lines, PO succeeded in committing fraud in different accounts, a penalty of recovery from the applicant could not have been imposed on him.
8. It has also been held by CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in OA 750/98 J.M. Makwana vs. Union of India and others decided on 04.09.2001 that the applicant cannot be made responsible for the criminal act of somebody else and the order of recovery of the loss to the Government, from the salary of the applicant cannot be sustained.
9. My attention has also been drawn to a decision delivered by CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA Nos. 344/03, 353/03, 354/03, 355/03 and 357/03 Smt. Kalpana Shinde vs. Union of India and others in which the facts of the case were almost similar to the present one. In the said case the applicant was not directly responsible for misappropriation of any amount, but the applicant was negligent in not posting the entries of the pass books in the error book and was also negligent and it has been held that the recovery, if any, was to be made for the loss of amount ought to have been made from the person directly responsible for misappropriation.
10. The charge-sheet served on the applicant reads as under:
While working as Chief Supervisor SBCO Banda w.e.f. 24.03.07 to 31.5.09 Shri A.P. Vishwakarma did not make proper supervision over the work of SBCO Branch to ensure whether the voucher checking and agreement work in r/o RD accounts was being completed properly. So many Will follow RD vouchers of Banda H.O. were pending since long but no fruitful action had been taken by Sh. A.P. Vishwakarma. The annual listing of RD accounts was also pending and it was not being completed properly. He also did not take suitable action in r/o non transfer of RD vouchers alongwith transaction list daily to SBCO by Banda H.O. Further working as P.A. SBCO Banda w.e.f. 1.6.06 to 31.7.06, 28,806 to 5.12.06 and 22.1.07 to 23.3.07, Sh. A.P. Vishwakarma failed to check Banda H.O. RD transaction list with vouchers to see accuracy of interest paid in RD withdrawals. Agreement of binders in r/o Banda H.O. RD accounts had also not been done properly by Sh. A.P. Vishwakarma. It resulted that RD accounts of Banda were closed twice. Not only this but they were closed by enhanced denomination and it could not be checked earlier and department sustained a heavy loss of Rs. 11757034.50 in this case.
Therefore, it is alleged that by doing so. Sh. A.P. Viwshwakarma failed to follow rule 2 (b) and rule 58 and 60 read with rule 29 and 30 (a) of Manual of SB Control, pairing and internal check organization (third edition) and rule 126 of POSB manual Vo. I, thereby not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty he remained failed to follow rule 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) CCS (Conduct) rules 1964.
11. From perusal of charge-sheet it is evident that the applicant has not been charged for commission of any fraud directly, but he was ultimately found responsible for slackness in the duties and for not making proper supervision over the work. Since the applicant is not directly involved in the fraud committed by other persons, I am of the opinion that the applicant could not be held responsible for the said fraud and any recovery cannot be ordered from the pay of applicant. For the forgoing reasons as already pointed out above, the present case is fully covered by the decision in the aforesaid cases and I find no ground to hold a different view.
12. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. Impugned penalty order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed. The respondents are directed not to recover any amount and refund any amount, if they have already deducted from the pay of the applicant. No order as to cost.
Member (J) /pc/ ??
??
??
??
7