Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V Govinda Setty vs D/O Post on 24 August, 2017
receettet $ O.A.No.020/00 IN THE-GENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL \ HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD ola Date of CAV:24.07. 2017.
Between < VeGovinda Setty, s/o W.Pullaiah, aged about 53 yrs, Postal Assistant, Head Post Office, Nandyal under the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nandyal Division, Nandyal, Kurnoal District.
And bh The Director of Postal Services, Ofo the Post Master General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, 3, The Chief Post Master General, AP Circle, Hyderabad.
4. Union of India, rep.. by the Director General, Dept. Of Pasts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 110 O01, Date of Order : ah O8 2017, ... Applicant .. Responcents Counsel for the Applicant . Mr. Venkateswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents... Mrs. &.Rafitha, Sp. CGSC THE HON'BLE MRS.MINNIE MATHEW, MEMBER (ADMIN.
3ayes \ mo The applicant is aggrieved by the Amnexure.A-I order of the first respondent ordering an the recovery of a loss of Rs.3 lakhs from his pay and the Annexure.A-H orders of the 2"
respondent rejecting his appeal against the orders of the first respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that while the applicant was working as Supervisor of RD Branch of Nandyal Head Post Office from [1.72001 to 30.11.2002, eertain frauds were committed by the Sub-Post Master, Yalur SO in respect of RD/TD accounts to the tune of Rs.9,26,600/-- After a lapse of more than 3 years, a charge memo was issued on 61.09.2006 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, In pursuance of the said charge memo, the disciplinary authority issued proceedings on 21.12.2006 uyposing the punishment of recovery of Rs. 81,566.50 towards the pecunfary loss caused to the department. Thereupon, the applicant filed appeal and revision petition against the orders of the disciplinary authority. However, his appeal and revision petition were rejected and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was confirmed. Aggrieved by this, the applicant had earlier filed QA.No. 388/2008 before this Tribunal. The OA was disposed of by setting aside the final orders passed in the disciplinary } proceedings dated 21.12.2006 as well as the orders issued by the appellate authority. However, the Tribunal granted Hberty to « On the respondents to conduct regular inquiry in respect of the allegat Hons made against the applicant in accordance with Rule 16 (1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 1965. lo was further "
directed that the amounts recovered from the applicant shall be refumded to him with months. The applicant submits that the aforesaid orders were complied with by the respondents.
3. The applicant submits that thereafter the first respondent issued the charge memo dated 26.3.2009 proposing to hold an inquiry in accordance with Rule 16 (1) Gy of the COS td (CCA) Rules 1965 in respect of four articles of charge. The charges are on account of the failure of the applicant to get the signature on the RD withdrawal forms compared with that of SB-3 card in various accaunts, as a result of which, the late S.A.Samad, the then SPM, Yallur SO, committed fraud in the said RD account. [t was also alleged in the charge memo - that the applicant while functioning as TD Ledger PA Nandyal HO, had failed to notice the erasures/corrections made in the amount of initial deposit in respect of certain residents of Yallur. It was therefore alleged that on account of the laxity on the part of the applicant, the late S.A.Samad, SPM, Yallur, committed frauds in the TD accounts. The applicant eybmiltted his defence statement on 94,2000 denying the articles of charge. However, the first respondent eondueted an inquiry under Rule 16 Cl (b) of the CCS (CO CA) Rules, and after conduct of the inquiry, issued the unpugn sed order imposing the penalty of recovery oF fogs of Rs.3 lakhs in 106 monthly mste iments from the pay of the applicant w ith immediate effect. The appeal submitted to the appellate authority was alse rejected, vide Annexure 1 memorandum dated 12.9.2013 without adverting to the points raised by him.
4. The main grounds advanced by the @ applicant are that the charge memo was issued by one Sri B.Bhaskar, who was an adhoc promote {6 the post of Supe: sintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool, and holding charge: af the post of Supe rintendent of Post Offices, Nandyal Division. As he is not a regularly selected candidate to the Group-B post, he cannot eXELCISE the power of disciplinary authority under Rule (2 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, the charge memo issued by an incompetent authority is ab initio illegal and void. He & urther submits that the exact date on which the irregularity committed has not been mentioned and that he has worked as Supervisor on OTA basis for 3 heurs anly on 30,1 2GN2, (84.2002, 16.10.2002 and 20.10.2002. He also submits that the alleged fraud was cc ommitted by the late Sri S.A.Samad before he started his work, Ther efore, there was no wrongful gain tO him s A BN and recovery of Rs.3 lakhs is\acbttras avers that he could have been held guilty of the charges only if any omissions snd commissions on his part had resulted in the perpetuation of frauds by Sri S.A Samad and that the inquiry officers's report did not elaborate any lapse on his part which had a direct link to the Io bss susta ained by the department through the fraud committed by Sri S.A.Samad, Ex.SPM, Yallur SO.
5, The applicant has also stated that the Hon'ble Court of the HW Addl Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in O.5.No.216/2008, dated 99.10.1999 held that it cannet be said that Sri S.A.Samad had committed misappropriation te the tune of Rs.9,26,600/.. That being the position the respondents should not conduct any departmental proceedings against the applicant. [tis also pointed out that no departmental inquiry was conducted against the late S.A Samad during his life time. Further, the other officials such as Inspector of Posts, Allagadda Sub-Division and the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (Regular, Co the SPQOs, Nandyal, who were also treated as sub-olfenders in view of their failure to notice its y pnpertant lapses on the part of the late SPM, Yallur, have been let off with a minor penal of Censure, whereas heavy amount has been ordered to be recovered from the applicant. 3 ph
6. The applicant also pointed out that in the first inquiry, the recoverable ammount was fixed by the first respondent as Rs.81,566.50 and that the said amount has been now enhanced to Rs, 3 lakhs without indicating as to how that amount is recoverable from the applicant. Thus, the amount to be recovered has been arbitrarily enhanced withoul any valid reason. His also submitted that as per the circle level inquiry report, the full amount of TD accounts mentioned in Articles ITE and [V have to be recovered from the SAS agent through whom these accounts were opened. However, the disciplinary authority has not taken measures to recover the sare from the SAS agents. The applicant farther submitted that without considering his representations objectively the i" respondent has imposed. the punishment of recovery and the same has been informed by the appellate authority w ithout considering his appeal in proper perespective.
7, From the reply statement, it fs seen that there Is no serious dispute on the factual aspects of the case. The main arguments advanced by the respondents im suppart of the impugned orders is that the irregularities committed by the applicant gave room for Sri S A.Samad, SPM, Yallur SO to commit frauds uninterruptedly without check and thee the applicant contributed to furtherance of frauds at Yatfur SO. They have also pointed out that as per the instructions contained in the Directorate letter No.803-2003-Inv, dated 45.92.2003 that besides initiating disciplinary action against the principal/subsidiary offenders, it should be ensured that the loss involved Is fully recovered by distributing the loss between all the offenders in suitable proportion depending upon the gravity of uf of each of the offenders involved in the case.
8. With regard to the various grounds raised by the applicant, the respondents have pointed out that as per the GID No.2 below Rule [2 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, only officers performing current duties of 4 post are prohibited from exercising statutory powers under the said rules. There is no such restriction on officers who are holding posts on ad hoc basis. In the instant case, Sri B-Bhaskar had worked as Superintendent of Post Giices, Kurnool, on ad hoe basis. Hence, the argument of the applicant that the orders have been issued by an Incompetent authority and that the entire disciplinary proceedings are illegal and void is not maintainable. It is also submitted by the respondents that from the nominal roll and the order book maintained at Nandyal HO, it has been conh med that the applicar worked on the dates which have been mentioned in the charge meme as Treasurer on
-\d cseees 6 X x s N x N ane regular basis and on OTA duty Ms dpervisor and TD Ledger PA. Further his are corroborated by documentary evidence and oral evidence adduced during the course of the Inquiry, If is also stated that Rule 48 of SB Manual Volume-I prescribes that the Ledger Assistant has to examine each voucher in accordance with rales and note any discrepancy or breguiarity noticed in the Objection Register - and should post the transactions in the ledger card against each entry in the remarks columns of the LOT. Buy, in this case, necesary checks have not been carried out by the Ledger Clerk as there are no initials In the remarks columns of the LOTs, He has failed to follow the provisions of Rule 38 of PO SB Manual Volume.t, which stipulates that if the signatures are not tallying, the matter should be referred to the Divisional Superimendent and the depositor should be addressed directly. All these provisions of rules have not been followed by the Ledger Clerk and this was not pointed out by the applicant who was the Supervisor of the RD Branch. a, With regard to the contention that a Civil Suit was filed by Sri S.ASamad, the respondents have pointed out that in one context the Court had held that it cannot be said that Sri i SA. Samad had commutted fraud to the tane of Rs.9.26.000/-, as the statemen purported to have been given by Sri S.A Samad dated 23.12.2002 before the ASP (R), DO Nandyal, was recorded while the said S.A Samad was in judicial custody However, "this cannot be taken as granted for all purposes", They also state that the other supervisory aificers such as Inspector of Posts, Allagadda and ASP ¢(R), DO Nandyal, have been purished with Censure and severe warning as their lapses were minor in nature and nat comparable with the lapses of the applicant.
10. The respondents submit that although the applicant has worked on OTA basis, Re is expected to complete all the checks which are prescribed in the rules. The failure of the applicant has made the main offender to commit frauds without hindrance.
se a ih oi Es wo ga is aN 4 y x \ K {1. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder stating that although this Tribunal had In O..No.288/2008 dated 31.7.2008 permitted the respondents to conduct an inquiry, there was no direction to issue a fresh charge memo. and that the fresh charge memo dated 26,3.2009 is egal and unjust.
12. The respondents have also filed an additional reply statement.
Peal fos Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the recard,
14. The applicant has contended that the charge memo itself is ab inige null and void as it has been issued by an incompetent authority. lt ha as been pointed out that Sri B. Bhaska Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumool, was an ad hoc promotes, who cannot exercise the powers of the disciplinary authority under Rule 12 (10) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, this objection is not valid as it is only the officers whe are performing current duties of a post who are prohibited from exercisin zg statutory powers under the rules. The applicant has not produced any material to show that the authority which issued the charge memo was only authorized.to perform the current duties of the SPOs, Hence, there is no merit in this contention.
15. Tt has also been contended that afier the earlier OA.No.288/2008 was allowed on 31.7.2008, the respondents had erred in issuing a fresh charge memo. From the maternal on record, it is seen that in Q.A.No.288/2008, this Tribunal had set aside the final orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings dated 21.12.2006 as well as the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 15.01.2008 giving liberty, however, fo conduct a regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applicant in accordance with eeyneyye <From this, it is clear that it is only the final ore Rule 16.(1) (b) of the CCS (CC x imposing the recovery that as been set 38 de on the ground that the respondents did not conduct a regular inquiry giving an opportunity to the charged employee to defend himself even after he denied the charge. The relevant order is extracted hereunder:
EQ cece cerca ASHER? 1 respect of minar penalties also when the cher wed employe we denies the charge, if is the bounden duty of the disciplinary authority ta make a regular inquiry giving at oppornurity te the charged employee to defend his case. But here, in this case, no opportunity was given fo the charged emiplayee '(the applicant herein). Therefore, on this ground alone the ¢ inal orders passed by the Super intendent of Post Offic es is nawsustainable in haw and ix liable to be set aside.
1, octeeagereereseeess conn fe have already observed (supra) ay teat 10 establish suet negligence, proper opportunity shall be given te the applicant. But, as no opportunity ty given in thix case, tf cannot be said that the neg gence on the pert oF the en wets ay and order of PECOVEPY QFE "not susteine ons under fow -caned aM 2 lial le fa de set aside.
final orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings by £ respondent dated 27.72.2000 as well as the orders dated 15.1 2008 issued dy the appellate authority. However, the respondents are at liberty {0 conduct regular inquiry in respect of the allegations made against the applica' uy accordance with Rude 16 ( Q) (h} of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1968, The amounts already recovered from the pay of the applicant shall be refunde dwithin avo monthy from the date af receipt of a copy f2. fy the result, the a pel cation is partly allowed setting aside the of this Order There shatl, Raweven be no arder as fo costs,"
Therefore, it is clear that this Tribunal had given liberty to conduct enquiry ar ad that the order was set aside on the ground that no regular inquiry was conducted. Therefore, the respondents ought to have proceeded by conducting a regular inquiry in pursuance of the charge memo already issued rather than issuing a fresh charge memo. There is no justification for issuing a fresh charge memo. The applicant's contention that a fresh charge memo cannot be issued without cancelling the earlier charge memo dated 1.9.2006 is also valid. Therefore, | find merit in the contention of the applicant that the impugned order is liable te be set aside on this ground.
-
.
\
- . . ONS
16. The applicant has also argded' th at in the first charge memo dated 21.12.2006, an amount of Rs.81,566.50 ps was fixed as amount recoverable from him, This amount has been arbitrarily enhanced without any valid reasons to Rs.3 lakhs in the unpugned proceedings. He has pointed ont that the respondents have not indicated as to how they have arriaved recoverable from the applicant. In reply to this, the respondents submit, that had, the applicant followed the procedure prescribed for processing RD withdrawals in RD ~--
i 47 O00/- would have at ;
f Account No.940066 on 28.01.2002, further frauds to the extent of Rs. been averted. Thus, as he did not do so, he is responsible for furtherance of frauds to that extent. It is also stated after taking a lenient view, he was awarded the punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from his pay and allowances.
'7. The aforesaid conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority has no basis and is purely hypothetical, The respondents have erred in determining the joss caused to the department on a fictional basis. Whenever recovery of pecuniary lass is ordered, there has to be a firm foundation supperted by adequate material evidence for the determination of loss. The purported loss cannot be fixed on the basis of hypothetical projections and presumptions. Further, the respondents have not given amy valid reasons for enhancing the recoverable amount from Rs.81,566.50 to Rs.d lakhs. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside on these grounds also.
18. Another important question that falls for consideration in this OA is whether the applicant who is working ina supervisory post can be punished with recovery of the loss sustained on account of the fraud committed by a third party oar a subordimate functionary.
19. In the instant case, there is no charge that the applicant himself has committed ¢ fraud and has misappropriated finds or caused pecuniary logs to the respandeni department oF that he has been a beneficiary of the il] gotten gains. The four articles of charge against the applicant read as follows:
"Article-L Theat the said Sri V Govinda Sette while functioning ax RD Supervisor Nandyal HO during the period from 11.017 2007 to 13,32.2002 has failed to get the signature an the RD withdrawal form of RDAIC NO.S40066 held in the name of Sri BV Sunil Kumar dated 28.1,02 ef Yallur SO, compared with that of SB-3 Card by the concerned ledger clerk by not noticing his initiais scrupulousiv ia the remarks column of RD LOT against the entry of withdrawal in token oF having carried out prescribed check ef comparison of signature on ww withel? neal form with that of SB-3 card as prescribed it Rule-38 af PO SR Masmal, Pol-l Thus. the laxity on the part of the seid offictal accelerated Late SA Samad the then SPM, kailur SQ fo conunit fraud ia fhe said RD Account.
it is therefore alleged that Sri Govinda Serty, SPAL NGO Calony failed to follow the prescribed procedure as laid down in Ruie- 38 of PO SB Manual, Fol f and thereby failed to mountain devotion te duty as required in Rule 3 (1) (i) af CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Article-if That the said Set Govinda Set. SPM, NGO Criony while functioning as RD Supervisor, Nandval HO during the period from {107.2007 te $3.01.2002 has failed ta get the signature on the RD withdrawal form in rio RD AMC NOY33129 held in the name ef Sit § Padmeavathi dated 16.4.02 of Yallur SO, compared with that of SA-3 Card by the concerned ledger clerk _ aot noticing his initieds scrupufousiy in the remarks column o LOT against the entry of withdrawal in foken of having carvied out prescribed check of oy REPRE PREC LURD CPE OPP LER ET Ada ther i fe Oren with Hor of SB-3 «© erp eye comparison of signature on withdrawal form with that of SB-3 cere as prescribed in Rule-38 of PO S& Manual, Vol-1. Thus, the laxity on the part of the said official aceelerated Late S.A,Scamad ihe then SPAY Yollur SO to comunit fraud in the sald RD Account.
Serty SPA NGO Colony failed 1 fo 1 follow. the provisions of the Rule-38 of PO SB Manual, Voll and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required in Rule 3 7) GD af CCS Conduct) Rules, 796d. Articie-Hf Thet the said Sri VGavina Sef, while fowtioning ax TD ledger PA, Nandyal HO during the period fram 11.07.08 to i3. 11.02 failed to notice the erasurexccarrections made in the amount of initial depasit furished in the denomination column of SB 3 card of one year TD aceount No.6 15082 ded 18.10.02 af Fallur SO standing in the name fe af Sei FLergarea a resideit of Nallux Thus, the official did sot Ps discharge his duties delivently and the action af the said official accelerated fate S.A Samad SPA Yallur SO te commit frands in the above mentioned TD accaunt.
it ts therefore alleged that &ri hGavinda Setty. failed to fallow fhe provisions of the Rule-28 of PO SB Manual, boll and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duis requires din Rule 34) ui of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV That the said Sri M Govinda Set while functioning as TD ledger PA, Nendvyal HO during the perlo from LLGP OG! to (3 1 Ge failed ta notice the erasures/corrections made in the amount of initial deposit furished in the denomination column of SB 3 card of one year TD account No 618081 did 72.10.02 of Yallur SO standing in ihe name of Sri DK baradaial a resident of Yallurn Thus, the official did not discharge fix duties deligerily amd ihe action of the said official aceelerated late 8.4 Samad SPM Yallur SO to commit frands in the ahove mentioned TD account.
ad it is therefore alleged that Sr? E Govinda Setty, failed to follow Pe the provisions of the Rule-28 ef PO SB Manuci, Fol! and therety failed to maintain devotion to duty as required in Rule 3 (1) (0 Poff OCS ose og (Conduct) Rules, 1¥64.
peearacesaee Lae
20. ee] articles of charges would show that the first and second articles of charges are with regard to laxity on the part of the applicant which enabled the then Sub-Post Master, Yallur SO, to commit fraud. The third and fourth articles of charges are with regard to lack of diligence in fis duties by failing to notice the erasures/catrections made in the amount recorded in the unftial deposits. fa short, all the charges relate to the lack of diligence and failure to follow the provisions of the PO SB Manual, which has allegedly resulted in the fraud committed by the then SPM. Thus, the applicant has clearly not been charged with misappropriation or committal of fraud,
21. In such a scenario, whether an employee whe has not been held directly respansidle for any nrisappropriation or frand can be punished with recovery or can be imposed with the penalty of recovery bas been considered by this Tribunal as well as the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal at Jabalpur in O.A.No.344/2003 & batch decided on 22.11.2004 and by the Ahmedabad Bench in O.A.No. 7560/1998, dated 04.09.2001. In OA.No.344/2005 & batch, the applicants had approached the Tribunal challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority imposing the penalty of r ery on the ground that they were negligent in not detecting the fraud committed by the staff of the Shabda Pratap Ashram, Gowalior Sub-Office. The charges levelled against the appheants therein pertaim to the violation of Rules 9 (1), 3] (2) Gid, 48 Gi, 92 (2) and 120 (6) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume. and Rule 3 (), Gi) and Gil) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. After considering the question as to whether violating a non-statutory rule by an employee can invite penalty of recovery under Rule 1] of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1905, the Tribunal held that the applicants were not charged that by any act of omission and commission or negligence or breach of orders, they bad caused any pecuniary loss to the we ° a 4 4 > HY ~ Government. Further, they have also not been charged with having any Intention to defraud the Government of the amount misappropriated by some third parties. The Tribunal also a held that the provisions of Rule 11 GID of the CCS (CCA) Rules are attracted only when gence or breach of orders, which ts Bees any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government by negli directly attributable to the employee concerned. It was also held that since the applicants were not directly responsible for the misappropriation of the amount, recovery ought to have been made from the person directly responsible for the misapproprisation. The judgment of the Jabalpur Bench had alse referred to the case of C.N Harihar Nandanan v. Presidency Post Master, Madras SPO, in which the Madras High Court had quashed the recovery order observing that the applicant was not directly responsible fer causing any pecuniary loss to the Government. A reference was also made to the case of J.M.Makwana
- Union of India in O.A.No.750/1998, decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunai on 4.9.2001 with regard to the question as to whether ¢ Govenment employee can be held liable for fraud perpetrated by somebodyelse. The order of the recovery was set aside holding as follows:
"He fave wo hesitation i conciuding that the whole order af the disciplinary authority as well as af ihe appellate authority is dased on misconception of the term: negligence and in witer disreguru fo ihe provisions of Rule Li (3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. If appears thet the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority believe that whenever some fraud has jaken place in fhe department and there Is loss af revenue, somebody should be held guilty jor te loss cenised to the department. Tf is not kept in mind by fhe disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority that the rule providing for imposing penalty Le. Rule 12 (3) ef CCS (CCA) Rules clearly hays down that the recovery can be imposed fran the pay af the Gavi Servent, if the pecuniary loss is caused by him te the Gavi, oy the negligence or the breach of the orders, We jail to understand how the penalty Of FRCOVErY Va aa b 4 ST S S, af Rs 9000/- contd he "posed by the disciplinary authority on the applicant and confirmed by the appelite authority. when the charges levelled against the applicant is not that, he fy his et of negligence caused any pecuniary loss to te Gevt. The charge levelled against the applicant was that by his negligence in not posting the entries of pass books in the errar book, the frail was nat defected earlier The Tridunal had further gone io abserve that even if for a moment we believe that applicant was negligent In not posting Whe entries of the pass books in the error book, then also tus negligence was nof such that it would be a cause for punishing the applicant with recovery of loss sustainekd by the department as well asx withhoiding af one increment. The applicant obviously is not directly respavsible jor the mizappropriation of this amount, and therefore, the recovery, f ary, was to he made for the lass of the amount ought to have been made from the person directly responsible for fhe musapprapriation. ©
22. In the present OA also the charges are with reference to the failure of the applicant to get the signature of the RD withdrawal form of RD account Nos.940066 and 935)2° compared with that of SB-3 Card by the concerned Ledger Clerk. In the Annexure.A-] order, the Disciplinary Authority has held as follows:
"Onder The allegations levelled against the official are that he did nat perform the duties diligently In accordance with the provisions af rufex in respect of RED withdrawals taken place in accoustis mentioned in Article } te NH and non-noticing of corrections made on SRB-3 ecards of one year TD accounts mentioned in Article Li and Article d!.
Keeping in view af CO's self aaimittance and documentary evidence and oral evidence adduced the charges are established. Hence, I concurred with the findings af 10. Had he followed the provisions of Rules on 281.2002 itself, further jraucs would have bees averted. Thus, hiy actions violating the provisions of rules caused the loss of Rs. 7,37,000-00 ta the department, wos fh weak Z eee ty The fapses committed by the CQ are grave in nature and ?
warrant deterrent wetion. Howeven taking info consideration of his length of service in the department and the service ahead u his career J am inclined to take lenient view and pass the order IS Mahammad Basha, Superintendent of Post Gifiees, Nandval division, Nandval do hereby order to recover the loss of Rs. 3,00.000 (Three lakhs enfy) towards hix xhare af the rate ef Rs. 3000-00 in 200 monthiy instalments from the pay of the official Sri RGovinda Seity Pa, Nandval HO with immediate effect. Tre amourit ordered includes the amount of Rs. 18 0000 which wes dready recovered. The remaining amon of Rs.2,82,G00-00 has ta be recovered in 94 instalments G2 Ro, 3000-00 PAM with lounectiate effect."
Thus, it is abundantly clear that the facts of this case are almost identical to the facts in the aforesaid OAs before Jabalpur Bench as well as Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal and also the orders of this Tribunal in Q.A.No.9S2/2013 dated 5.8.2015 and OA.No 1 29/2013, dated 5.6.2017. Further, even if it is held thet there has been lack of diligence in following the rules in respect of RD withdrawals and in failing to notice the corrections made on the SB-3 Cards, the applicant cannot be imposed the punishment of recovery in view of the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal.
23. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned orders are quas shed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to refumd the amounts recovered from the applicant within a period of three months. However, the respondents are not precluded from proceeding against the applicant strictly in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, ;, and Imposing an ' appropriate penalty, if the charges of negligence and failure of duties are held proved, Bee 16 scorn, enh a cone NM aaa y AY cane ~ te ost as to oe 4 eed vet Sat wee py oy a allow x i A The a ~~ Eos SAN SASSER ae