Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
A K Sayedur Rahman vs D/O Post on 21 March, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00222/2017
Date of order: This, the 21st day of March 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between:
A.K. Syedur Rahman
Son of Late Abdur Rahman
Percept Road Wood Residency
F.A. Road, Sixmile, P.O. - Khanapara - 781022
Dist. - Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
...Applicant
By Advocates: Sri D.N. Sharma & Sri N. Baruah
- Versus -
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
To the Government of India
Ministry of Communication & IT
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan
New Delhi - 110116.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Assam Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan
Guwahati - 781001.
3. The Director Postal Services (HQ)
The Chief Postmaster General
Assam Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan
Guwahati - 781001.
O.A. No. 040/222/2017
2
4. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Guwahati Division, Guwahati - 781001.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Sri S.K. Ghosh, Addl. CGSC
Date of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date of Order: 21.03.2025
ORDER
PER M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A):
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to set aside and quash the impugned punishment orders issued under Memo No. F4--2/15-16/Rampur S.O/Discy/AKS Rahman dated 4.05.17 (Annexure-1) by Disc. Authority and Memo No. Staff/9-294/2017 dated 23.10.2018 issued by the Appellate Authority Viz. Director of Postal Services (HQ), Guwahati (Annexure- A/15).
8.2 Any other relief (s) which the applicant is entitled to as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Sri D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant while working as Postal Assistant SBCO, Guwahati GPO, a Memorandum O.A. No. 040/222/2017 3 under No. F4-2/15-16/Rampur S.O/Discy/AKS Rahman dated 11.01.2017 was served upon him by the respondent No. 3. It was further submitted that the applicant while officiating as Supervisor (SBCO) in Guwahati University Head Post Office during the period from 06.04.2011 to 17.07.2013, after a lapse of 4 years of the occurrence of the fraud, had been Charge-sheeted for not following the procedures prescribed vide Directorate New Delhi letter No. 113-1/2002-SB dated 05.05.2003. The aforesaid Charge sheet has only 2 (two) Articles of charges alleging not completing the periodical agreement of balance of Recurring Deposit as per instructions of Postal Directorate, New Delhi letter No. 110-23/2001 SB dated 07.01.2002 & 113-1/2002/SB dated 05.05.2003 in time. It was also alleged that due to non- following of all the checks prescribed to be exercised as per paragraph 67 of Savings Bank Control Procedure, which were opened during the year 2010, the Sub Postmaster, Rampur, wrongly gave wrong block No. from O.A. No. 040/222/2017 4 290001 to 300000 and subsequently had withdrawn Rs. 2,15,532/- from those TD Accounts for the period from 11.02.2014 to 05.03.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the work of posting in SB ledger in Guwahati University H.O. had been entrusted to the Postal Assistant as prescribed in Rule 38(1) (a) read with Rule 14 of Savings Bank Manual Volume 1. It was also alleged that the applicant did not take action for non-submission of six monthly agreement of RD balance as per Postal Directorate Memo No. 110-23/2001 SB dated 07.01.2002 & 113-1/2002/SB dated 05.05.2003. However, in the aforesaid Articles of Charges, no charge of grave misconduct of fraud or misappropriation etc. has been brought against the applicant.
4. As per the learned counsel, at the time of assuming the charge of the Supervisor, SBCO Branch in G.U. Head Post Office, there was pendency of posting of O.A. No. 040/222/2017 5 S.O.RD/TD transactions in H.O. (RD/TD) ledger from 30.04.2003 to 06.04.2011. After continuous pursuance from the Supervisor, SBCO Branch up to date positions of ledger posting/data feeding were intimated through monthly summary sent to the Accounts Officer (ICO) SB, O/o the Chief Post Master General, Assam Circle, Guwahati, who is the Controlling Authority endorsing a copy to the Divisional Superintendent of Post Offices, Guwahati for necessary action. Moreover, the applicant intimated the position of pending returns due from SB Branch of the G.U. Head Post Office to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Guwahati and the Disciplinary Authority to arrange for early submission of the pending returns vide letters No. SBCO/G/Return/2012-13 dated 10.07.2012, 21.09.2012, 18.10.2012 and 16.11.2012. Applicant, while working as a Supervisor, SBCO Branch in G.U. Head Post Office, did not receive the returns from S.O. SB Branch, where the daily returns were compiled and sent to SBCO for further O.A. No. 040/222/2017 6 necessary action to prepare SB 85/SB-62/SB-63 register etc. or voucher of RD to feed in the computer. Thereafter, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Guwahati had written a letter to the Post Master, G.U. Head Post Office for submission of the pending returns vide his letter No. E2/SB/ P O S B Return/211-14/Pt I dated 01.08.2016. The applicant however, intimated the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Guwahati that SBCO was running with shortage of staff and at least two more additional staff were required to pull up the pending work in different items vide his letter No. Staff/SBCO/G U/2011-12 dated 18.10.2012. The position of pendency in different items were also brought to the notice of the Post Master, G U Head Post Office through his letter No. SBCO/G U/Return/2012-13 dated 26.02.2013 for submission of pending returns early. But there was no proper action to pull up the pending returns to SBCO.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since there were no returns received for O.A. No. 040/222/2017 7 the period from 30.04.2003 to October 2010, hence without arriving at a correct balance of an account, same could not be brought forward for subsequent opening balance of that Account. As per the learned counsel, the SO RD returns from November, 2010 had been started to submit in the months of May, 2013, whereas the fraud was committed in the period from 28.05.2012 to 17.07.2012.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant requested the Disciplinary Authority for inspection of relevant records vide his letter dated 23.01.2017 to defend the Charge, but the Disciplinary Authority could not show the vital documents. Thus, the applicant was deprived of the reasonable opportunity to defend the case. More so, without completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority started recovery of the said amount of Rs. 1,46,848/- from the salary of the applicant for the month from May, 2017, O.A. No. 040/222/2017 8 while the process of appeal/review was pending in Circle Office, Guwahati.
7. It is also brought to the notice of this Tribunal the Rule 106 & 107 of P&T Manual Volume iii, which clearly states that in case of loss caused to the Government, the Disciplinary Authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an official while determining any omission or lapses and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed. However, in the instant case, neither such realistic assessment was made by the Disciplinary Authority nor this point has been assessed by the Appellate Authority.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that while the applicant was working as Assistant Sub Post Master at SOSB Branch in Guwahati GPO, he was served with a Charge-sheet dated 11.01.2017 for not completing the periodical agreement O.A. No. 040/222/2017 9 of balance of Recurring Deposit as per instructions of Postal Directorate letter, New Delhi letter No. 110-23/2001 SB dated 07.01.2002 & 113-1/2002/SB dated 05.05.2003 in time. Therefore, during 11.02.2014 to 05.03.2014, fraudulent withdrawals amounting to Rs. 13,47,900/- were effected by Late Sri Bhagirath Hazarika, the then SPM, Rampur SO. Applicant immediately submitted his written statement before the Authority vide letter dated 18.01.2017. However, without considering his written statement, the Disciplinary Authority vide Order dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure-I) had imposed a punishment of penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,46,848/- in 15 monthly instalments @ Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. May, 2017. Being aggrieved, applicant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 19.06.2017 (Annexure-
13). However, the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 23.10.2018 had confirmed the punishment imposed upon the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority.
O.A. No. 040/222/2017 10
9. As per the learned counsel for the applicant, from the perusal of the Charge-sheet, it would be evident that the fraud had taken place in Rampur SO, but not in the University GPO, where the applicant was working and the said fraudulent withdrawal was made by one namely, Late Sri Bhagirath Hazarika, the then SPM, Rampur SO.
10. Respondent authorities have filed their written statement, wherein they have stated that the applicant neglected the work for not completing the periodical agreement of balance of Recurring Deposit violating the procedures prescribed vide Directorate New Delhi letter No. 113-1/2002 dated 05.05.2003. The periodical agreement of balances in RD account are to be conducted every 6 months as per Postal Directorate's letter as mentioned above. The balance of accounts in each binder will be verified in six months. The first round will cover the period from January to June and the second round from July to each year. The agreement O.A. No. 040/222/2017 11 should be completed on 30th September and 31st March for the first and second round respectively as per the Directorate's letter dated 07.01.2002 and 05.05.2003. By taking the opportunity of above mentioned irregularities of the applicant, Late Sri Bhagirath Hazarika, the then SPM, Rampur, SO defrauded an amount of Rs. 13,47,900/- in respect of RD loan withdrawal from 28.05.2012 to 17.07.2012. Had the applicant followed the above said procedure for the periodical agreement of balances in RD Account of Rampur SO, the fraud could have been detected much earlier and the loss sustained by the Department would have been at the minimum.
11. The applicant, by filing rejoinder, had denied the said averments made by the respondents and has reiterated his submission made in the OA.
12. As per Sri D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, while the applicant was working as Assistant Sub Post Master at SOSB Branch in Guwahati GPO, the O.A. No. 040/222/2017 12 respondents could check the correctness of the posting of transactions made in Sub Office only when it would be posted in S.O.S.B. ledger in H.O. that too when the ledger Postal Assistant brought the irregularities to his notice. In the instant fraudulent withdrawals, the applicant could not verify the correctness of the ledger posting since irregularities were not brought to his notice by the ledger Postal Assistant. Therefore, he is not responsible at all for such irregularities as the responsibility of posting of ledger is lying with the ledger Postal Assistant as per Rule 38(1)(a) read with Rule 14 of Savings Bank Manual Volume 1.
13. With regard to non-reporting, it has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that, every month, a monthly report to the Account Officer ICO (SB), Circle Office, Guwahati endorsing a copy to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Guwahati, is being sent by the Supervisor, SBCO with his signature after getting the countersignature of the Postmaster. Hence, O.A. No. 040/222/2017 13 the allegation of "not informing" to the higher authority is not correct.
14. Heard the rival arguments, perused the pleadings and scrutinised the whole conspectus of the case.
15. It is an admitted fact that the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 13,47,900/- had occurred at the Rampur SO, whereas the applicant was officiating as Supervisor (SBCO), Guwahati University HO. It is also noted that the applicant joined the said GPO on 06.04.2011 and remained there till 17.03.2013. There was huge pendency of posting of SO SB/RD/TD in HO ledger from 30.04.2003 to October, 2010, which has not been denied by the respondents. However, as per the respondents, due to negligence for not completing the periodical agreement of balance of Recurring Deposit, the fraudulent act occurred on the part of Late Sri Bhagirath Hazarika, the then SPM, Rampur, SO could not O.A. No. 040/222/2017 14 be detected early. There is no allegation in the Memorandum of Charge that the applicant is anyway involved with the said act of fraud. It was also not alleged that the applicant is co-conspirator of the said fraudulent act of withdrawal of money but only negligence on the part of the applicant, for which, he has been imposed with a punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,46,848/-. Though there was a loss of fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of Rs. 13,47,900/-, however, recovery of Rs. 1,46,848/- has been fixed and ascribed to applicant, is without explanation/rational and without fixing any proportionate specific liability of the applicant. That too, on the ground of negligence. The explanation to the alleged ground of negligence had been submitted by the applicant to the Disciplinary Authority. However, without considering such submission on the part of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the said penalty vide Order dated 04.05.2017; and that was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Order dated O.A. No. 040/222/2017 15 23.10.2018, which in our considered opinion, not tenable in the eye of law; hence, liable to be quashed and set aside.
16. Regarding the pending of postings in SO ledger, the applicant vide his letter No. Staff/SBCO/GU/2011-12 dated 18.10.2012 intimated the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Guwahati that two more additional staff were required to pull up the pending work in different items. The position of pendency in different items were also brought to the notice of the Post Master, GU Head Post Office through his letter No. SBCO/GU/Return/2012-12 dated 26.02.2013 for submission of pending returns. The applicant brought to the notice of the authorities the lacunae in time for taking steps to pull up the long pending returns since 2003. In the absence of returns/received from SOSB Branch, SBCO Branch couldn't progress periodical agreement of RD Ledger balance. The SO RD returns from November, 2010 had been started to submit in May 2013 only whereas the O.A. No. 040/222/2017 16 fraud was committed during the period from 28.05.2012 to 17.07.2012.
17. In view of the above, the impugned Order No. F4-2/15-16/Rampur SO/Discy/A.K.S. Rahman dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure-1) as well as impugned Appellate Authority's Order No. Staff/9-294/2017 dated 23.10.2018 (Annexure-A/15) are quashed and set aside.
18. With the above observations, O.A. stands allowed with no order as to costs.
(MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (MR. RAJNISH KR. RAI)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/PB/ Digitally signed by
PRASANNA PRASANNA
BASUMATARY
BASUMATARY Date: 2025.03.24
10:24:06 +05'30'
O.A. No. 040/222/2017