Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P.Sreeramulu vs The Superintendent Of Post Offices on 8 June, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD
O.A.No.665 of 2008
Date of Order:08.06.2009
Between:
P.Sreeramulu, s/o late P.S.Subbarayudu,
Postal Assistant (TBOP), Nandyal HO-
Pin:518 501. ..Applicant
a n d
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nandyal Division, Nandyal-518 502.
2. The Director of Postal Services,
O/o the Postmaster-General, Kurnool
Region, Kurnool-518 001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General,
A.P.Circle, Hyderabad-500 001.
4. The Union of India, rep., by the
Director-General, Dept. of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
5. The Union of India, rep., by the Secretary,
Dept. of Personnel and Training, MHA,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.T.V.V.S.Murthy
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu, Sr. CGSC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY, VICE CHAIRMAN
THE HON'BLE MR.R.SANTHANAM, MEMBER (ADMN.)
: ORAL ORDER :
( As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman ) Heard the learned Counsel Mr.T.V.V.S.Murthy for the Applicant and the learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu for the Respondents.
2. This application is filed by a Postal Assistant challenging the punishment of recovery of Rs.87,618.50ps from the pay of the applicant at the rate of Rs.1252/- per month in 70 installments and the remainder of Rs.1230-50 in 70th installment.
.........2 2
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant worked as Ledger PA of RD Branch of Nandyal HO during the period from 11.7.2001 to 13.11.2002. Some frauds were committed by the Sub-Post Master, Yallur SO in respect of Savings Bank/RD Accounts to the tune of Rs.9,26,000/- as permanent misappropriation and Rs.73,500/- as temporary misappropriation. On 1.9.2006, after a period of more than three years, a charge memo was issued to the applicant along with the statement of imputations of misconduct under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure.A-III to the OA. The charges levelled against the applicant are as follows:
Sri P.Sreeramulu, SPM, Noonepalle TSO, while working as RD ledger clerk of Nandyal HO during the period from 11.7.2001 to 13.11.2002 committed the following irregularities:
1. He has failed to compare the signatures on the RD withdrawal forms of Yallur SO with that of SB-3 Cards in r/o RD A/Cs mentioned below:
Sl.No. Date of withdrawal Account No. Amount of of Yallur SO withdrawals 1. 1.10.2002 736736 Rs. 34000/- 2. 13.8.2002 737295 Rs. 8500/- 3. 21.8.2002 935104 Rs. 9500/- 4. 13.8.2002 737321 Rs. 10000/- 5. 21.9.2002 736737 Rs. 8500/- 6. 21.9.2002 736947 Rs. 7000/- 7. 31.7.2002 935145 Rs. 8500/- 8. 6.8.2002 736733 Rs. 14000/- 9. 28.8.2002 947005 Rs. 12500/- 10. 31.7.2002 935238 Rs. 11500/- 11. 21.8.2002 935157 Rs. 8500/- 12. 28.8.2002 947009 Rs. 13000/-
2. He has failed to raise the objections when the signatures of the depositors on the warrant of payments of above mentioned RD accounts were found not tallied with that on record.
3. He has also failed to initial in the remarks column of RD LOTs against the entries of RD withdrawals mentioned above.
.........3 3 By committing the above irregularities, he has contributed to the extent of loss of Rs.87,618.50 P. in the SB/RD/TD frauds committed by Sri S.A.Samad, Ex.SPM, Yallur SO to the tune of Rs.9.26,600/-
It is therefore alleged that Sri P.Sreeramulu, SPM, Noonepalle TSO by committing above irregularities contravened the provisions of Rule 38 of SB Manual Volume I and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required under Rule 3(1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
The applicant submitted his defense statement on 20.9.2006 denying the charges and requested the disciplinary authority for dropping the charge memo and also requested to hold an inquiry to prove the charges. Thereafter on 31.1.2007, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nandyal Division, Nandyal, issued proceedings finding the applicant guilty of the charges and imposed the punishment of recovery of the pecuniary loss caused to the department Rs.87,618.50ps from the pay of the applicant at the rate of Rs.1252/- per month in 70 instalments and the remainder of Rs.1230-50 ps, being the last installment. Against the said order, the applicant filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dated 15.1.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present application is filed challenging the charge memo, the findings thereon and also the punishment imposed and also the order of recovery and the order of the appellate authority.
4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that this Tribunal has already held in several cases that punishment of recovery of such a huge amount cannot be imposed under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules without conducting any regular inquiry especially when an employee denies the imputations levelled against him. He further contended that, in the instant case, though the alleged fraud is committed in the year 2001 and 2002, after a period of more than three years, a minor penalty charge sheet was issued and that the applicant specifically denied the averment of the alleged negligence on his part and also .........4 4 the alleged loss caused to the Government and inspite of denial, without conducting inquiry, the respondents passed orders imposing the punishment of recovery of huge amount of Rs.87,618.50ps.
5. The respondents contested the application and filed reply statement stating that the applicant was proceeded against under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and a charge sheet was issued on 1.9.2006 and the applicant submitted his representation on 20.09.2006. The applicant was rightly awarded the punishment of recovery of pecuniary loss of Rs.87,618.50ps from the pay of the applicant and that the said orders are in accordance with the rules. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
6. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Respondents reiterated the stand taken by the respondents in their reply statement.
7. The point that arises for consideration in this application is whether the impugned orders passed by the respondents are sustainable in law?
8. Similar cases have been disposed of by this Tribunal, the latest being O.A.No.737/2007, dated 31.7.2008. The facts of the cited case are exactly similar to the facts of the instant case. A similar charge memo was issued against the applicant in OA.No.737/2007 in respect of the fraud committed by the same SPM of Yallur SO. This Tribunal set aside the punishment imposed on the ground that inspite of denial of charges by the applicant, punishment was imposed without conducting enquiry. This Tribunal set aside the final orders dated 24.4.2006 as well as the orders dated 15.12.2006 in that case giving liberty to conduct regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applicant in accordance with Rule 16(1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is further directed therein that the amounts already recovered from the pay of the applicant shall be refunded within two months from the date receipt of that Order. Here, in the instant case also, the applicant specifically denied the allegation of negligence on his part and he specifically requested for an inquiry to be .........5 5 conducted. But no opportunity was given to the applicant by the respondents to prove his innocence though he denied negligence on his part. This Tribunal in OA.Nos.313/2006 and 377/2005, dated 23.2.2007 passed an elaborate order in a similar case deprecating the practice of imposing such huge amount of recovery under the guise of Rule 11, which deals with minor penalty without conducting any inquiry inspite of denial of charge by the delinquent official. Therefore, we do not want to go into the merits of the case. But, as no opportunity was given to the applicant to prove his innocence by way of conducting an inquiry, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in our considered view, the final orders dated 31.1.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, vide its order dated 15.1.2008 are liable to be set aside giving liberty to the respondents to conduct regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applicant in accordance with Rule 16 (1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
9. In the result, the OA is partly allowed setting side the final orders dated 31.1.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, vide its order dated 15.1.2008. However, the respondents are at liberty to conduct regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applicant in accordance with Rule 16 (1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The amounts already recovered from the pay of the applicant shall be refunded to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The applicant shall be considered for any further promotions subject to the final orders that may be passed in the regular inquiry in case initiated again under Rule 16 (1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. There shall be no Order as to costs.
( R.SANTHANAM) ( P.LAKSHMANA REDDY ) Member (A) Vice Chairman Dated:this the 8th day of June, 2009 Dictated in the Open Court