Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Chhatrapati Behera vs D/O Post on 12 May, 2023
OA Nak rh CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE T RIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH nal Application No. 260 /O0° $84 /2019 Origina Reserved am ZF ALE e3 Pronounced on :
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (Admin) Chhatrapati Behera, ave about 56 years, aren. emaen an dra Behera, resident af Ville bk savunds, Fl- ~ Buepur, Dist- Sarag Qo earh, Udisha, PIN-F HBOS present wy working as SP 3M, Kuchindra MDG, THst ipur, PIN - 768222. (Gr.'C)}.
Sarbal Applicant Por the Applicant: Mr. C.P.sahant, Counsel ox VERSUS 1, Union of India, represented through its Secretary af Pasts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - LAK C4.
2 Chief Post Master General, | Qklisha Circle, At/P.O. Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda, Odisha - 7S UHL.
3. Director of Postal Services, Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur ~ FEST.
4, Superintendent of Past Offices, Sambalpur Division, Sambahpur, PIN-7OS00.
Respondents Por the respondents: Mr. GJ0Verma, Counsel YON THE ¥ ate Mat Ko ER 2 2 O BOD pe hee, ed on pee yor.
onal Pat > i oN, + 3 Y ov &S POS & 3 Pramod Kumar Das, Menrber{ A} vader R hr tow, ines po.
a Ge eset a feet Boe Pas.
on ios wer .
wee j Bebo oom od ae ee C05 Cen, a 7 Faaia ? Gt soeeeg, fs -
rm, x 'saat as, wee ils eee, haa went a7 eee nor , s pki sen ; oe gm * 'ee tr, area ' or spot BR u nd fr afi Behera {f the per oe Gh ws, . % ee SY fled be Ye 8 eee Sa 2 pom ee sores a Sk moO MNO BEh gad ME vaeee, Tg aed $3 pe Bete OF ed ee pan oy : 4, $k ud Ln Le they we Pe Be ORES peceey Nee Senin, fo S p Pp t FOOT x Fe sOOH-bo "yy ey Sauces.
%.
ee Be Bargart OH he department Pram Sake ard "Y SCY?
y ae pee pg on eed ct an ay oe z ane by 8! Ye Ny 3 $ a GN) Paes ae MOGH £ gry Ads * x z Qe NS 2 day Swain G Qo hab s S Had it x ot S 3 UA Nad & Fee Inhaning Alle working 2012 and fy 26. DL SOOe, SL OF UNF and on nat Peres a af : chera (L8G PA Kuch 7 Kachineda MDG under fharsague:
Sowith effect fram TO2.O7.20 " P be cel PGT fram ella have been 'made afte Spree) ial Ryror Book far monitoring sakd pass baoks. Nad it been de the provisions under Rale-76 of f Ssh ad by Snot Sh wal canid have been a result of which the ar which Shri Behera ciating ruda HO while wor King Pte GUMS laPe recehve ved the "-- ? 7 dated LGO2.200 1 for withdrawal of Rs 5O0t)/-
ia respect of Banda BO SB Account Na-LISS481, but fated te check and verify the SB-? where the balance after transaction was iets mot noted and failed to @ verily ihe slsnature af the depositar and accepted the withdrs af RS SOU witheut any object which was the fraudute lent withdrawal made by the delinquent ath RPM Smt Shabis Swain without the knowledge of the depasito ee :
Had the SB-? fwithdrawal voucher ss abeve} be checked a: "a verified properly as per uh ® provisions under na oF POSB Manual Volare. 1 by Shri Hehers % Pia Srat Shanes > Sannin ¢ GDS SPM Bands HO dr this AO ~ ccould have oy nny fe oo ae Se one as aad a LA were Ps hi, pred a mE ne ee anne! Bees Ror . 5 68 hs Fe ood * pe, "not ee Ob peed te Bn ree Cot pees 3 oh eR ws oe OR ed fone. 2 Y nee ed eos oe one road A wo wane ot rend e Sie dee gy ae poe x bind get 6 EKG pe oF Snr pew roo % 5 cod pe, ar tnd 4 oy oa. a4 a ee aoe rbwck Qte:
ae rs syne. Ee ose ne ws ao fait eee $ ft on > ais aa poms ee IY a F cae oe a3 one, a genet LE Saad " £ vt xe aos <i. aaa SS fee ite, A, Le Tne 5 . we wien Sc patos, ot ye, 1G Psd note ied ome oes yon "
eas cece ie foe . oe .
Ls x tao a 2 fob "~ dome a i pat a} on, "oad ceed os Kal ae 4; 'soelt Wire eed ee ras) pa ben 33 pe tree' th ta road 0s cyeee, pactes $ Yi 4 4 FS Ys pa fe ots, teal 2a yer the pravisions wader mS ore "
Leas 2 a3 Set z, 'nah wo bepeet 3 eens noel ad eit, a OG oe oS : Bebe pa . pee pee ee. ay fed % wh aes ne, Pod Sieh on me ay *~ pra S ee on ' ot Lo, warn wee ;
"ened ta od int we as a bade 3 : bey st esl ie be, A re eel i ie ve aX pee wa Renee, rs, .
isc) pe Ly nk iv a neee, 's - fee ay =, io ne " endl aan on, ogee z feond fed e Sod Knits tat ot oS end 063 trea Pa be lane cae a ree aed aed Me we oa oe rom yr nog Py Le eee ie x Cot ae ~~ "oe 4 sc' e.
ie aad pet Ard Se te : 4 Lad we week we Tent hee ay "nei ee. yee, oe 3 Sad s oy "nen 5 wae aS ed oe Bs ~ Be Te ks a ee i 4 bas! x $n Sy rte o : nse fae ni . ec a yen, erent "naa! Fs hs 2a ae ae
- Oh ae fete got * besa to < bod 2, ; rans to , Le ited "ys ; ¥ ot se, 7A est C nk oe "aoe tet "oe oe ty BE "e x lan Sees oA ined Sx ben oa oe fa oe ea < ome cs oo £3 By wee tet te y: ez, es BS , ae PLY nee eed are oe bee " : bos oncet wen ay ta al eo arnt oa, tt, 'a ~ es Pend Cy Paae' , fasaead het EN os se Seinei? pon a me oie Ps ae ry ae. "ots Jp Fs ae) i tee giving RIS s x os by me personally G1 Sane Hence almost aff the SH Aecounts have got posted of inperest. :
red with computer balance. In case any interest sad discrepancies Was found, i ren such PRs was sent to HO by U 50 dk ally a SCeOEE ODSery Ee ' a the a od af 2048 ue form was converted into a Project Arrow ¥ Office Hance " he accounts were taflied with balance of HO computer balsnce, For reference those relevant records may Rhuily be referred ta. Whether f bave talcan all the actions as prescribed in mde 73 of PO SB Manual Yoll or net. fam surprised that haw my disciplinary authority comes fo Know that | have not taken any action for balance ver sification and angereast addition in BO SB accounts. oc far ay knowledge coneernad during ray retention af Rardal <6, almost the halance of an SB a ACCEL ints g eat tated with conpater balance with the help ot As per provision laid down In Rale 76 (bp 1 of FO SE Manual Volume ft, on explanatory note from: author, it is stated that "The interest entry shoul' be made in the accounts through system sofware in compute vet offices", Hence as per provision 88 sepn ag the inferest statement received from HO, ib was got poston :
respect of all SH ace counts in Sanchaya post software oF s had Instracted all BOs gh BOQ sip to cauect an Passhoauks fo enter interest A AUEE number af pass ba updated with interest fur whieh | have ta work Late » almost very cay. Reeards ~ eyldences may kindly be o. As SPM ] have directed S Eere and Was also QR - i by t Pee interest addition position. But almost afi the PBs got updated at SO Jabel, and the books vith hy glance difference were setded at HO by SY yersieen No BEM disabeve ito submit passbooks far balance verificatian ne through SB documents duly observing all Formoahties, edt 5 1 ok As x bee 3 sf wy Set he ee ies Te f" ae, ri oes, nF, aaa ree 2 wane Me 'at ge cats "6k % om ATE, Pic cee cd a ad pan ge re or $4 os be a 3 Bees nw es pn ao ee get bed es » LS rae poe it Se OO SE so oe 45 , fe on pane 50 oe ot umes es ee es com - oe re. ee PCC De nS SE iy or) 2B a MS rains ag A <8 7 ot 'mgt yo ee, oan bn AG oT ee at "S re sy, peed ae oS 8 vs we 'es Coe Oe hee pas | oe ra ag os, soe a ek" cl es ae ee Sow pet ie pad 25%, 5 ae oy ry ee a, Lee me P , oo" Se os my Re GA et ie Re BS 2 Pot whet ete Be;
ken 'ares & es eo o the ae er re anes bag he ep et » £ "we et esas ir ee get pers ae p we ener : ker ret the mei hep ee ore' eo a 25% bo os Te 'ak omy RO tnt Soll teed on tee pom e ga aA weewe, * por 7 mans 4 Kagl wer ay s cA fee eh ee yeh ge sn in vet oie oe we he fe ee Ee ies yn, ous bon rae ee desk x Pt a ey Tree, wan } . teen J ns, es any Tete jreeen PC bey oa os s ve sar beac' i a Oo ee nat A aa "neil ae pee ma net a pee oo Pa on a ae het pee foe we Pa dent Neat Bary fn, det ar . a7 . ss a 'eet ore Whe Saas Eves bat wom 4 Ra, ; weed, bee . Pood os ge FY &, oma a By ome ore or ah MEE oat a s ag '4 fk ore me va es Dat ae mee eed ae. Fomres ood Be gees my boomer' :
of tod hy tee mS, 2 Be TEs a a wee ae re a, % we co ew ees er , fae eal wf a s we on & GY @ i ay me yes a By £2 Ch ty ed te te Le ass 3 wee ad Ee jeans Pf a ee pot ye, 'eee eens Gy Oe ae eee 7 ake " te ry pt kee ena' whet sere ws ' acces! shee oA UG os rae "ee oy "Gs . C ans ; i :
God na oad HER seen ws can eee Mo, seat ; Ms os . Sa ne a : ay wit, MO, Ne se wee me, ¢ goa 4 a ee a 0} ieee: Sseet Sy ed oe oe ee ee oe ee 83 Me gy EY omy at aie vee PGS. Ped Ty TAs Sf faa eed figeg OM pe Sat MER soot ea ty by Rent Z fer, rene ac mS one BS teat gine By BE Ror To RO ap Mw eb va cs Rone TA pase ven LG ae ae eg oS er ae i 2 EOE da pe sy eng? 2 pe Fe ae pe an ene Mr a ee Siren a ag boot oo bee ior ee OB By cna ee By nee ee ee ore "nt PaO stene BS oo, aed ee as, po ard pie AN, cane my Sat oe LF sei a Sa pa ect YO peg Poed week pa Oe paca) ye Se And fe Se OE m4 ee a no) Fed 6 ig a we Se ee pes :
pean oy pad ned 604 "et Gon oo oe pa OS Bd be pO eo OO ae Bm HE oe , oe Oe ra te Ue pee Re th re De ote aa Pos 5. ee ee ont ee we Fe SR Ft hy. eter mF ad ee cee eS a pre ted Se OES Dad
-
.
o & pre seribed procedure will have DOLL Banda BO had accounte SB Account pO LIZ? S3 and Riterestieccn depasitar's signature was present ino application side of th vou cher as well as an the sc quik ittance portion, both the signature 4U with the specie signater re af the system so the : CHAR WAS entered by the al SO and accounted fe or the tran nsaction, duly observing " ther y formalities. Ar the end AK ste ie was genera rated rhroust dong wi y that the S aper vise x /SPh "i 1h ave {0 : val transaction at 8 0 nat exceed) the | presumptian of Ty dhsek iplinary « authority ' e commission of fraud by Sat Shakeela Mwai etected roach eaclier anil for which Shri ig TRS sponsible' a nothing but the charges forcefal ate me.
sl oa ay The Disciplinary Autharity's order dated 21.08.2019 Annesure-A/2 reads as under
>t have gone through the memo of charges, all coumected recor als of the case and representation preferred i by Shri Chhatrapats Rehera in connection with the Rule-16 ¢ sharge sheet against him thoroughly and seen that Shri Behera completely denied the charges level against him in artic 4e-1 and article. 11 and claimed te an for balance verification and Interest addition in ef acceunts. The claims made by Shri Behera are found and unconvincing. Had he undertook prot per procedure By as & ey x then the frand could have been averted. The sakd Shri Gehera has misinterpreted the rule on ver ificatian of the specimen signature.
'Tt As yer the Provisions oer Rule 35 af POSS Manag Volumes i, Shri Behera is required to ensure yerdieation af the spechnen of 2 ienature: e in case of working as SPM Bards! "4 rawal made at the BO vy ag The sald Shri Behera is t therefore failed ad aEder to discharge his duty im secp Mfanual Volurse- 1. The are therefore not accep cantributary negiis such @ huge loss ne t:
appeal an 1406.5 O19 & ZONK.2018. During the 2 4 Applicant preferred appea:
pendency of the Apresl, appre ehending recovery before any shas approached this | taken on his Appeal, he with the prayer as uader:
"Hy Admit the t Sriginal Application, and
(i) Miter hearing the quash the charee 45.70.2018 at Annexure punishment Memo Np, 27 AS20179 at An mexarenA/- 3 And kindly be passed recovered Qmiount % N a with the Rule-33 of POS : subnusslo, ns made by j ir is well proves a the depart ment sustained vhow isand)} yencing Pom | the BARS pangequen nly, respondents te i ing comsequenth Phone! reby impose loss of ° wey ¥ only © ae a the y aarh iy om y decision 8 Peibunal in the instant OS Saeed arder of Pge TS fDise- Wl dated y i 4 i i 3 OA Na TS
5. 'This Tribunal, while giving opporrunity te the Respondents to He tan their Counter, vide order dated 29.07.2017 9 and, subsequent orders, directed not to effect recovery which order has Seen CONTMUNng til date & Respondents Med their counter op spasing the contentions made by the applicant In support of bis relie? and have prayed that this OA being deyaid of merit is Hable to be dismissed on the facts and grounds as stated is the counter that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant for the irregularities and lapses committed by him while he was working as Sub Postmaster Rardol Sub Office with effect from cant, Bardol Sub Office ae WOLD? to USAGA012 and as Postal Assis! during the period from T9.0LEUN to SRQL2007, SO0LZ007 te 82.02.2007, OB.OR.2007 to SLOT.2007 and 06.10.2005 to LO TQ 2008 thereby resulting non-detection of the misappropriation af Govt. money committed by Smt Shabda Swain Ex GDS BPM Banda Brack Office. The lapses ay pointed out is that he falled to take any ac ton to call for the SB pass books from Banda Branch Office for addition of interest after receipt of the interest statement for the year 2006-07, 2007-08, SOG8-09, 2tHs8-
Hand 2010-11 from Bargarh Head Past Office. Had it been dane by him in tiie ag per Rude-7S of POSE Man val Volunie- 1 [Annexure - R/1), then ee Dem, Set the commission of feud by Smt. Shabde Swain GDS BPM Banda Branch Office could have been averted and the same would have been detected much earner. As a result of his failure, the department sustained loss of hye own Siero sarhydis styrene he wpe SEE peek Bay bhess veered the applicant whle wrerking as such dict mot Take any Further, action on non-recetpt of SB pass books for addition of Interest from Randa Branch Office in which transactions have heen made after a1"
March and to maintain the Special Errar Book for monitoring of addition % of interest in the saiel pass books. Had it eee been dane by him in time as per "e the provisions under Rule-76 of POSE Asrual ¥Yolume- 1 (Annesure -RY 2), sustained loss of Rs. 13,07 388 /- .
Again, if has been stated that the applicant while working as sucly x received the SB-? (withdrawal voucher} dated 18.0c.201 1 for withdrawal ~ of Rs 5000 /- In respect af 32481, but failed ron, wens, the x oe we pews $n, ies a4 aw precy aha jos seed! fy bases tad ty check and verify the SB-? where the balance after tranisacthvr was net nated and failed to verify the signature of the depositor ard accepted the "Ie withdrawal of Rs, S000/- without any objection whith was the franduls at SVS Ney OSS ik GA Na cee withdrawal made by the delinquent GDS BPM 31 Shabda Swain without the knowledge of the depositor. Had the SB-? (withdrawal voucher as above) been checked and verified properly as per the provisions under Ruleds of POSS Manual Volume-1 (Annexure - B/G), the commission of fraud by Smt Sbabda Swain GDS BPM Banda BO In this Account could have been detected much earfer and further fraud could have beon averted and for his fillure the department hac sustained less of Rs.
Similarly, it has been submitted that the applicant while working as such received the SB-? dated 12.05.2011 for withdrawal of Rs, 500Q/- in respect of Banda BO SB Account Ne 1127783, but tailed to verify the signature of the depositor, as signature of depositor in payment side of SB-7 does not tally with signature on requisition side of 28-7 ¢ nel accepted the withdrawal af Rs S000/- without any objection which was the fraudulent withdrawal made by the delinquent GOS BPM Smt. Shabda Swain without the knowledges of the depositor. Had the SB-? [ withdraws! voucher as above] been checked and verified properly as per the provisions under Rule-33 of POSE Manual Volurme-1 fAnnexure-ByS) chen the commission of fraud by Smt Shabds Swain GDS BPM } Bands BQ in EOUEINISS GH this Account could have been detected much earlier and farther fraud 'esult, the deparbnent sustained lass af Rs.
by the department. Hence, the lapses of the applicant directly contributed cowards joss swstained by the depsrtment. Hence, they have jushil issuance af disciplinary proceeding against the applicant under Rule-16 of COS (CORA) Rules- 1965 and the subsequent punished with recavery o) fs,3,60,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty thousand), which is the porthar of less to the Government. The applicant preferred appeal dated 14.06.2019 and approached this Tribunal before any decision is taken thereon, Accordingly, respondents have submitted that the disciplinary of proceedings ander Rule 16 of the ES *§ {CCA} Rules was Initiated against the applicant and the same was culminate Lin accordance with rules and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, therefore, there being no infraction of any provision of rules and law, the OA being deveid of merit is Hable to be dismissed.
been made without any rhyme oF Peascyis as he was in ne oway invalyed in the fraud and the fraud was committed by one Smt. Shabda Swain, delinquent GDS BPM, Sanda BQ in respect af different accounts whereas the agplicant was working in Bardol SO as SPM/PA, ft is submitted that without any details of the fraud comoritted, documents, frecords and the WHALES operandi of the fraud, the disciplinary authority held the applicant negligent in performing bis duty and imposed the punishment of é recovery, The applicant was nat pasted as regul lar SPMYPA but was pasted intermittently, [¢ is contended that the interest posting is done ynly in SB accounts. AN the passhooks webich were nat received at Bardal SO for annual interest posting were mentioned by the concerned PA, Bardol SQ in the error book and reported to the then Inspector of Posts as per Rule 75 & 76 of POSER Manual Voll During the incumbency of the ny applicant from 2007-2012, no complaint or objection was raised by any inspecting authority including disciplinary authority himself rege ary error committed by the applicant, Rule 75 of POSB Manual Youl provides that the concerned BPM has to ceHlect the passbooks and send ty the account affice and neavhere H is provided that the of M can force the * RPM to send the passhooks, The applicant being SPM had no authority or competence over BPM fo take action against the Selingy was fer supervisory authority. Relying on the BPO Inspection Questionnaire, H is contended by ua. Counsel fer the applicant Uiat Inspecting author! Ys. and SPUs was Log ee ggebocgy PoP SS \ ¥ 2 £ PoHAS Lays ge Poy eben styary AOE authorised and comigetent fo cree k whether the BEM fas collected the S8 ¢ hooks not presented for transaction by St S tune of the year and sent cee same to the HO with a list in duplicate by 15° fuly for entry of interest, if not direct the BPM to do so immediately. Henca, Inspeching autharity has to take action for non-receipt af SB pass books fur annual terest posting. Further, as per fale TSC Twi), the Divisional SPOs will furnish a certificate to the Head o of Circle by SOS September thatthe work af verification of bs prescribed has been duly completed. fn such circumstances, IP the passbooks were not sent by the delinquent GDS BPM for inte IGF post es the Inspecting officers [ke the Inspector af Posts and the Respondent Nod should have raised the question of such non- pasting of interest further, the large amount of fraind was committed In ROYSTD accounts in which there is no provision of interest posting. le is alleged that ve axe pen ut OQARGS respondents are trying to make him scapegnat to shift the responsibilty en baseless allegations. Further contention of the Ld counsel far the re applicant is that the apportionment of the amount sc sught to be recovered ve std eg ad 9323 ay oe YRS rviex $3 Peet gy pte re A Pa Pee is without amy basis and that Rule [7. Gi) of (CS (CCA Rules 1962 pray des that recovery from pay of the whale ar pari OF any PecuMary 14s veghgence or breach af arders whernas on a "LS % wee rae ra oa fe pee ve passe 2 kos ns 4 f foe 2 yore pew SREERE ETSY TEE DEEPEN EEY SUYVETEERETS BS :
t "eset it is not the case af the respondents that any pecuniary loss has been caused directly by the applicant and, therefiire, the recovery is bad in law, Further it bas been contended that Superintendent of Post Office, Sambaipur Division, was alse overall supervisor of the work in questian but no proceeding was initiated against him and be being equally responsible he ought not to have imitieted the proceedings and passed the order af punishment, which is against the cardinal principle that one cannot be the judges of his own action. It has also been contended that since the allegations are factual in nature the respondents ought not have imposed punishment without causing any inquiry to veil the truth ¢ Wfthe matter. in this connection, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.ABhkardwaj Vs. UOl& Urs, 2008 SCC(L&S) 188. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that HEY ERE CALCOT ESI DIDEDEED EOL DIEDIDI IDOLE YN o to MNS ges LS ESA, Nex Aes recovery fir contributory negligence has already Seen hedd dlesal by this Tribunal, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, in this connection, he has placed rellanecs on the decision of the Tribural in the case of Mad. Leteefuddin Ve. UO! & Ors, (L091 /2013, Hy sderabad Bench), Sukomal Bag Vs. UOT & Ors. (635, PAG, Cuttack Bench, which hay been upheld by the Non'ble High Court of Grissa in WURLC) No. 4343 72001), Par wasknath Daeli Vs. UOE & Ors. (1446/2016, Cuttack Bench}, Aditva Prasad Panda Vs. UQI & Ors, (OA 6419/2011, Cuttack Bench), Manmohan Mohapatra Vs. UOT & Ors. (OA 33S8/2018, Cuttack Bench], and the decision af the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. State of West Bengal (AUR Tar. se 752), UO! & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 785), Anant R.kulkarni Vs. KP-Edueation Society and others (AIR 2013 SC 2098). Accordingly, if is submitted that the present case being one and the same both on the facts and law, the applicant is entitled to the relict claimed in the QA.
B. Ld. Ceunsel for the respondents, an the other hand, aubmitted that the disciplinary proceeding was Initiated against the applicant for the irregularities and Japses committe d by him while he was working as Sub Poetmaster Bardal Sub Office with effect from LOL? te 05.06.20 ie seineeitrnrn and as Postal Assistant, Bardel Sub O'ce during the periad from TOT 2007 te 2R0L2007, SOOLZOOF ta OLOSZOUY, OS.05. 200% to OF 200? and G6.70.2008 ta LOLDOQ2 008, which resulted) noarn-detectian OM jeeet.
of the misanproprigtion of Govt money committed by Smit Shabda Swain Ex GOS SPM Banda Brach Office. Hac the applicant performed his duty with devotinn ar] taken appropriate action in time, the commission of Fraud by Sot Shab sda Swain could have been detected earlier and averted and the department would not have sustained buge loss of Rs.
u Aer giving duc consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective parties, perused the recards. | have also gone through the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Tribunal referred to above. Before delving Inte the present matter, it may be stated that fi the fraud committed by Smt, Shabda Swain, a portion of the ammount was alsa ardered to be recovered from: Sri Subodh Kumar Para, PA, on conclusian af the disciplinary proceedings initlated against him. The said applicant (ari Subeadh Kamur Panda} challenged the order of recovery in OA No. 544 /2019 and the respondents opposed his prayer. This Tribunal after taking Into consideration all the cantentions advanced by both the = = ' acehettemsnatpentinntin 18 CHA No SINS SG parties and the law in subject have allowed the relief te the applicant vide order dated 17.04.2023. Relevant portion of the arder is quated herein helt thas been charge sheeted CA) Rules, 1965 net for mself but on 7, ft is seen that the ap pl Bee under Rule i6 of the CCS nitting any fraued or avesany & Negation that because of his su s, another person defrauded the government, [fis the speck se af the applicant that the Discinlinary Authority imposed the punishment without any documentary evidence and had the Disciplinary Authority carsh dered all the points raised by him in his defence, Dist: iplinar ~y Authority would nat have come & such a conclusion. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a matter of Rule 16 af CCS (CGA) Rules, 1965 jn the case of OAL SRardweaj Vs, UOP& Ors, 200 SCC(L&S) 188, was pleased ty hoki as under:
EN FPG Cose af PNAOP Pay x fy GH aQppert has to be given to the delinguent employee fo. his savor to Sle his exnignation wilh res - to hon. Moreaves, :
they are denied an p enquiry ane ponte afse be call Fiepe gs wods 1} re BE. Ipr Es iF MET?
8, it cannot be disputed that the allegation against the applicant i factual which was S also t denied by the applicant in his defence before the sciniinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, in view of the law stated above, ouy eht to have called for a regular Inquiry instead of Imposing the } punishment without inquiry. cS : further seen Usat the applicant was nat poster eglar SBPA but was asked to look after the post due fo leave vaca siiey in addition to his own 1 GANG.
duty. To be precise, the applicant was asked ta manage the SB PA Bardal 50 on different : spells from SOAG2012 S big Me 19. PLSGLE te FOES, BRATZSOLS te y. (2013 te TLO22013 to to OHI SOTS fo £O C7 OF 2013 to 3 % ta 20. 08 2013 3 Us Qa:
te 2OJTO. 3, PSASSOTS te Sot GEOLedt4, 15.02.2014 to S2044 to 1803 701: § Tasers ta a6, O7.2014 ta TSOP 204, SF OF 2014 fo . E9102 te BS 7L2014. 27. Let Ao tr 4 12 O14 and eS 122014 to 27 AS20174, Le. some time for wR 3-4 days or for a week in a month. Tis not known, who was the regular in scambent managing affairs af the SB PA Bardal SO for major part of this duration and whether any action has heen taken against him/her, Applicant, on the other hand, has allewed that proceeding was not initiated against the regular SREA, In such circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that gross injustice has been caused to the applicant in decision making process. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment inyposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, ts in siolation of the princigle of natural justice and law disc sussed above. In similar matters, this Tribunal in O.A. LO3/204% [Khageswar Mohanta Vs UQl & Ors) disposed af on 28.06.2017 and QA. No- 260/008 38 af 2018 Utanmehan Mohapatra} decided on 25.05.2022 quashed the punishment imposed on the said applicants for the offence committed by another employes. Hence, in view of the earlier decision of this Tribunal and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'hie Apex Court referred to above, this Tribunal is of the view that the impugned orders are not sustainable In the eyes af jaw.
3, in view af the peculiar Facts and Circumstances sol the ease, the charge memo No. F/4-3/14-15 of dise-V dated "5 SHOAMARG OS 303 QA Nee ee Appesliate tho "ity dated 2 28 99.2 19 {A/G} Resultantly, the respondents are directed "to refund the already recovered amount te the app vicant within a per dnd of 30 days from the date of receipt ofa copy -afthis arden"
10. In the present case, the applicant was alsa posted as SPM/ESA in she said Sub Post Office on intermittent dates me nfioned above, itis aise not the case of the respondents that the applicant has committed any fraud or misappropriation.
justification as ta how and an what basis the propartfonate amount sought to be recovered was reached by them, In elect, ¢ an examination, if is seen that the present case is Same an d similar to the case In OA g44/2019, Inthe case of S.L Roaplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. SS63-64 of 1997 disposed of on | $.12.1999}have held that precedents which snunciate wales of law from the foundation of administration af fastice under our system. This is a fndaments ai princigle which every fudicial Forum: ought to know, far camsistency in interpre sation af law alone can lead fo pr ublc ¢ confidence in our judicial system. Time and again, i has been held that 2h OA No Dee orecsedent law must be followed by all concerned: deviation from the same should be only ana procedure known to law, A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made ay another Bench. In view of the above, | doe not see any justification fo deviate fram the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Sukomal Bag, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Ni gh Court of Orissa, hased on which DA No. Sé4/2019 has been alowed, Consequently, the order af punishment dated 21.05.2019 is quashed. Resultantly, the respondent! sare directed fo refund the reenvered amount, if any, to the applicant within a period at 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall be at Uberty to proceed In accordance with rules, LL in the resulf, the OA stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own CORSE, (PRAMOD KUMAR DAS} MEMBER (ADMN,} CSERICM CAOOALUAALASELELODPED ED Reb ro ee