Madhya Pradesh High Court
O.P.Baghel vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24fh OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1166 OF 2010
Between: -
O.P.BAGHEL S/O GHANSHYAM DAS BAGHEL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PRESENTLY POSTED AS SUB POST MASTER,
SUB POST OFFICE, NEW HIHG COURT, GWALIOR,
RESIDING AT C-31,VINAY NAGAR, SECTOR III,
BEHIND POWER HOUSE, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI
2. POST MASTER GENERAL,
INDORE REGION INDORE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIRECTOR, POSTAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF
PMG, INDORE REGION, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
GWALIOR DIVISION, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NEWASKAR - ASSSTANT SOLOCITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA)
_______________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke, Judge passed the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed against order dated 11.08.02009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Circuit Camp at Gwalior in M.P. in O.A. No. 71/2009 whereby the learned Tribunal has 2 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, by upholding the order passed by respondent no. 4 of imposing the penalty of recovery of Rs.63,996/-, and the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal against the said order of penalty.
2.For adjudicating the controversy, it is necessary to go through the facts in brief. That a charge memorandum dated 01.06.2007 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for brevity "Rules of 1965") was issued against the petitioner in which it was stated that while working as Postal Assistant RD Account, Morar HO, he had received advice of transfer (AT) dated 19.06.2006 from Muzaffar Nagar, Head Office, Two Years Fixed Deposit No.276514 along with original Pass Book showing balance of Rs.2,50,000/- with a request to transfer it to R.K. Puri, Sub Post Office. It was further stated that the petitioner without checking the said documents nor completing transfer formalities sent it to R.K. Puri, Sub Post, Office through one (N.S. Patel) who was working as Recurring Deposit Sub-Office Ledger Clerk Morar, HO, thus, he utterly failed to make entries in the relevant journal of the Office and also failed to check Oblong MO stamp affixed thereon for the month of June. Based on aforesaid action as new account had been opened and payment of Rs.6,39,580/- from account were made to Rakesh Prajapati, fraudulently who later absconded. Further, it was alleged against the petitioner that he belatedly sent entries made in the documents in the foreign journal to SBCO, Morar Head Office, as a result of which, Supervisor SBCO, could not check genuineness of the said Advice of Transfer (AT). Thus, he not only failed to perform his own required duties, but also facilitated fraud by 3 not preparing basic record. It was therefore alleged that he violated Rules 51, 54 and 56 of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol-I.
3.Facts also revealed that vide representation dated 21st of June, 2007, the petitioner sought supply of certain documents under provisions of RTI Act. In response thereto, he was informed that the said documents cannot be supplied under Section 8(j) of RTI Act. On examination of aforesaid representation, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, being the disciplinary authority passed order dated 11.04.2008 and ordered recovery of Rs.63,996/- in 24 installments of Rs.2750/- per month in 23 installments last being of Rs.746/-.
4.Being aggrieved by the said recovery order, the petitioner submitted his statutory appeal and pleaded his innocence and contended that Rules 51, 54 and 56 of M.P. Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol-I had not been violated, and therefore, his appeal be allowed. The Director Postal Services, Indore Region, Indore, being the appellate authority, after due examination, rejected the said appeal vide order dated 10.10.2008 holding that petitioner was negligent in performing his duties which caused loss to the Government and, therefore, recovery which has been ordered is justified. Against the said order the original application was filed before the CAT.
5.Per contra, reply was filed in the matter by the respondents, wherein it was stated that while the petitioner was posted at Morar, Head Office, the duty of the petitioner included the work relating to checking of RD Accounts received on transfer. But, before sending Advice of Transfer (AT) to R.K.Puri, Sub-post Office, Gwalior, received from Muzaffar Nagar HO, the same were neither checked nor transfer formalities were properly completed. Further, no 4 permission from SBCO, Morar Head Office, which was a condition precedent, under the Rules, was obtained before sending the said documents to Sub-Post Office, R.K. Puri. Thus, the petitioner failed to exercise required vigilant examination of afore-noted documents, and, therefore, facilitated the fraud. After careful scrutiny, the learned CAT observed that because of the failure on the part of the petitioner in performing his duties resulted in great loss to public exchequer and, therefore, for the aforesaid lapse, the respondents were justified in inflicting penalty of recovery which in the circumstances cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate and thus did not find any ground for interference in the matter, and accordingly, dismissed the original application.
6.Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed and on behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is per-se illegal and bad in law and therefore cannot be sustained. It was also contended that disciplinary authority has failed to follow the procedure provided under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1965, as much as, the petitioner in reply of the charge-sheet had brought some facts relating to illegalities committed by the other employees on which a detailed enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, was required to be conducted, but the disciplinary authority did not pay heed to the averments made therein. It was further contended that the requisite documents were also not provided under provisions of RTI Act. Thus, the order of imposing penalty was per-se illegal and this fact was not even taken note of by the appellate authority. It was further contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was on the basis of surmises and conjectures and there was no cogent material to prove 5 the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner as Rule 54 (4) of the Saving Bank Rules lays down that the entries in advice of transfer, application for transfer, ledger card and the journal of SB accounts opened on transfer was required to be checked by the Postmaster, who has failed to discharge his duties and since he has relegated the power in this regard to the petitioner, which was not within the duty of the petitioner, and on account of this fact, the imposition of penalty on the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law; for brevity Rule 54 (4) of Saving Bank Rules reads as under:-
"54(4)- The entries in the advice of transfer, application form (SB-3), application for transfer, ledger card and the journal of SB accounts opened on transfer {(SB(2- B)} should be checked by the Postmaster who should then fill in the particulars in the intimation portion of the advice of transfer. After signing the intimation portion, the Postmaster should send the advice of transfer with the application for transfer ledger card and the Journal of SB accounts opened on transfer to the Control Organization for check. The official-in-
charge of the Control Organization will scrutinize the documents, sign in the prescribed column of the transfer journal, countersign the intimation portion in the advice of transfer under his designation stamp and return the documents to the SB Branch."
7.Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the respondents by Shri Praveen Newaskar that it was the duty of the petitioner to have checked the RB Account received on transfer, but before sending the Advice of Transfer (AT) to R.K. Puri, Sub-Post Office, Gwalior, the same were neither checked nor transfer formalities were completed. Also no permission was obtained from SBCO, Morar, Head Office, which was condition precedent and thus the petitioner had failed to maintain entries in the relevant credit journal of the office which was basic documents and had failed to exercise required 6 examination of the aforesaid documents and facilitated fraud. The counsel for the respondents while submitting relied upon Saving Bank Manual Vol-III. For ready reference relevant extract of the Manual is reproduced as under:-
"106. In the case of Proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses, caused to the government by negligence or breach of orders by Govt. Servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Govt. Servant was responsible for a particular act or act of negligence or breach of order of rules and the such negligence or breach caused that loss.
107: In a case of loss caused to the Government, the competent disciplinary authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an officer and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer, the bearing of such lapses on the loss considered and extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by officer shall be given due weight."
8.Heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.
9.From the record, it is observed that the petitioner was posted as Postal Assistant, Morar Head Office and apart from other duties his work include checking of genuineness of the documents received pertaining to RD Accounts on transfer from other post offices and admittedly while working on the said post on 23.06.2006 he has received advice of transfer from Muzaffarnagar, HO original pass book of Account No. 276514 along with transfer application (SB-10/B) seeking transfer of its account to R.K.Puri, Sub-Post Office, Gwalior. The petitioner without checking those documents and without completing transfer formalities handed over all those documents at Morar, Head Office for sending them to R.K. Puri Post Office. He also failed to obtain permission from Savings Bank Control Organization, Morar, Head Office before handing those documents. He also failed to make entries 7 in the credit journal of Morar Head Office, which was basic duty of the petitioner. Thus, he failed to exercise his duties which resulted in bogus payment of Rs.2,66,650/- at R.K.Puri Post Office. From the record it is also evident that petitioner made entries in the foreign journal and sent them belatedly i.e. after about 15 days to SBCO, Morar HO, as a result of which, the Supervisor, SBCO could not check Advice of Transfer (AT) which had not only amount to dereliction of his duties but the very act of the petitioner could be said to have facilitated fraud.
10.On the basis of the lapses of the petitioner, chargesheet was filed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1965, and after due consideration, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment, under Rule 106 and 107 of Postal Manual Volume III, of proportionate recovery of the pecuniary loss sustained by the department i.e. about Rs.63,996/- out of loss of Rs. 2,66,650/-
11.So far as the contention regarding controversy that the requisite documents were not provided to the petitioner is concerned, the act of the respondents in not supplying documents could not have prejudiced the petitioner as he could have inspected the record which was available with the respondents, but no such exercise was undertaken by him.
12.With regard to the contention that it was the duty of the Postmaster to have checked the documents and the entries made therein are concerned, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as bare reading of Rule 54 (4) would make it clear that initial formalities were to be completed by the petitioner and, thereafter, it was the duty of the Postmaster to have checked those entries, the application and the other documents and, therefore, the 8 negligence on the part of the petitioner could not be shifted on the Postmaster and no benefit could be derived by the petitioner out of the said Rule.
13.Thus, the action of the disciplinary authority, and the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal and the order of the CAT, Jabalpur in O.A. No.71/2009 cannot be faulted with.
14.Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the matter, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2022.03.14
17:48:19 +05'30'