Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
S D Basaligundi vs Deptt Of Posts on 12 February, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00607/2023
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
S.D. Basaligundi,
Age: 47 years,
S/o Duntappa,
Working as Inspector of Post
At Indi Sub Dn,
Vijayapura Postal Dn 586 101
Residing at: C/o Balavaddi,
KEB Jrannanagar, Mudalgi 591 312,
Belagavi District .... Applicant
(By Shri P. Kamalesan, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore 560 001.
3. Director of Postal Service,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad 580 001
kavya kavya shree k
CAT, Bangalore
shree k2025.02.17
14:38:46+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
4. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Chikodi Dn,
Chikodi 591 201,
5. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Vijayapura Dn,
Vijayapura 586101 .... Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Quash the O/O Superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayapura Dn, Vijayapura 586101 Memo No. VJP/VIG/F- 4/2/SDB/2020-21 dated: 21.02.2023. Annexure-A6 issued by Respondent No. 5.
b. Quash O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad 580 001, Memo No. NKR/Vig/Appeal/068/2023 dated 22.06.2023 vide Annexure-A8 issued by Respondent No. 3.
c. Consequently direct the Respondent No. 5 to refund the recovered amount to the applicant.
d. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant was working as Inspector of Posts at Raibag Sub Division of Chikodi Postal Division from 19.08.2016 to 11.06.2019.
The applicant was proceeded under the provisions of Rule 16 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 ('Rules' for short) by the Respondent No. 4 and an order of penalty of recovery of Rs. 5,61,076/- dated 15.12.2020 was issued. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred OA No. 152/2021 before this Tribunal which came to be disposed of, vide order dated 22.02.2021 directing the Respondent No. 3 to treat the applicant's pending representation as an appeal against the order dated 15.12.2020 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, observing that no recovery shall be effected so long as the applicant's appeal remains pending. Though the said representation considered as an appeal was rejected, on adjudication of another pending appeal preferred by the applicant, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2021 remanded the case to Disciplinary Authority to issue de novo disciplinary proceedings from the stage of issue of fresh charge sheet. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority initiated proceedings under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules against the applicant.
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The applicant asserts that some documents were inspected by him to prepare his reply for charge memo on 03.11.2022, but 06 documents which were vital for preparing reply was not produced for inspection, accordingly, the applicant sought time. However, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order of penalty dated 21.02.2023 ordering recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,65,076.14 (Four lakhs sixty five thousand seventy six rupees and fourteen paise only), being the amount of loss caused by the applicant to the government by negligence while discharging the duties of Inspector of Posts under Chikodi Division from the pay of the applicant, the then Inspector of Posts, Raibag Sub Division at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month in 46 instalments starting from the pay of February 2023 and remaining amount of Rs. 5076.14 (Five thousand seventy six rupees fourteen paise only) in one instalment.
Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred the appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be rejected. Hence, this OA.
4. Learned counsel Shri P. Kamalesan appearing for the applicant submitted that the proceedings initiated under Rule 16 were finalised imposing penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,65,076.14 without providing reasonable opportunity of defence to the applicant. The kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE total amount of misappropriation of fraud discovered amounting to Rs. 24,98,852/- plus 10,34,238.63 towards normal and penal interest relating to the period spread over from 01.01.2010 to 02.11.2017.
Referring to DG, Posts instructions dated 05.12.1985, learned counsel submitted that it was mandatory to form team of officials to verify 100% verification. Contrary to the said instructions, no charge could be levelled against the applicant fixing the contributory negligence on the applicant to the tune of Rs. 3,38,652/- plus Rs.
2,22,424.14 towards normal and penal interest. The respondents have recovered only Rs. 10,15,188/- against loss of Rs. 24,98,852/- plus Rs. 10,34,238.63 towards normal and penal interest from the main offender without any basis. Referring to Annexure-R3 filed along with the reply statement of the respondents, learned counsel submitted that the share determined towards the applicant's contributory negligence works out to Rs. 31,672/-. The Appellate Authority, in a routine manner, confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority rejecting the appeal without considering the grounds urged by the applicant in a right perspective. Placing reliance on the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 518/2020 dated 25.07.2023, the applicant seeks for the reliefs claimed.
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
5. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents justifying the impugned orders submitted that, despite providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant to submit his explanation to the charge memo dated 04.02.2022 (served on the applicant on 07.02.2022), he has failed to submit any representation and adopted the dilatory tactics of seeking some irrelevant documents, as such, the Disciplinary Authority was constrained to conclude the proceedings ex-parte on 21.02.2023.
6. Learned counsel further submitted, the program of cent percent verification of Branch Officers for the year 2017 was issued by Respondent No. 4 on 30.12.2016 well in six months advance. The verification of Ugartown BO under Ugarkhurd LSG SO was proposed for the month of June, 2017. The applicant commenced the verification on 03.07.2017 and submitted the satisfactory verification report on 11.09.2017. The applicant has not requested the Divisional Head for forming any team for assistance, on the other hand, he entrusted the verification task to his subordinate staff. The recovery made from the principal offender has no bearing with the charges levelled against the applicant. The applicant has failed to carry out the verification work entrusted to him with a vigilant perspective.
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Considering the lapses on the part of the applicant while working as Inspector of posts, Raibag Sub Division, penalty has been rightly imposed and the same cannot be found fault with. Learned counsel further submitted that the share of contributory negligence fixed on the other subsidiary offenders have been recovered and the applicant herein alone is litigating. Accordingly, seeks for the dismissal of the OA.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The order of penalty dated 15.12.2020 has been set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2021 and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority with the directions to initiate de novo disciplinary proceedings against the applicant from the stage of issue of a fresh charge sheet.
Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority issued the fresh charge memorandum dated 04.02.2022 proposing to take action against the applicant under Rule 16 of the Rules.
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
9. The charge memo indicates misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs.24,98,852/- in Ugartown BO for the periods spread over from 01.01.2010 to 02.11.2017. The applicant has worked as Inspector of Posts, Raibag Sub Division for the period from 19.08.2016 to 11.06.2019. During this period, the applicant has carried out cent percent verification of Ugartown Branch Office along with Ugarkhurd LSG SO and has submitted satisfactory verification report of cent percent verification while certain transactions of non-credits/fraudulent withdrawals were found to have occurred during the said period. The applicant has not submitted the representation or explanation to the fresh charge memo in the guise of seeking inspection of certain documents. The applicant having not availed the opportunity provided, cannot take the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. Be that as it may, an ex-parte order dated 21.02.2023 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,65,076.14, being the amount of loss caused by him (share of contributory negligence to the tune of Rs. 3,38,652/- plus Rs. 2,22,424.14 towards normal and penal interest in 46 instalments at Rs. 10,000/- per month from the pay of the applicant commencing from February, 2023 and remaining amount of Rs. 5076.14 in one kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE instalment after deducting Rs. 96,000/- already recovered from the pay of the applicant from January, 2021 to June, 2021 without ascertaining the actual degree of negligence contributed by the applicant. On further appeal filed by the applicant, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal vide order dated 22.06.2023 in a cavalier manner. In both the aforesaid impugned orders, it is not forthcoming how the share of contributory negligence is assessed and quantified against the applicant, more particularly, when the applicant has worked as Inspector of Posts, Chikodi Division from 19.08.2016 to 11.06.2019 and the fraud detected relates to the period 01.01.2010 to 02.11.2017. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 518/2020, DD: 25.07.2023 (Smt. Shwetha S. Naik vs. Union of India and ors), which is extracted hereunder:
"13. Contributory negligence ordinarily is the failure to exercise reasonable care for their safety by the party who brings a case against another party. Contributory negligence can bar recovery or reduce the amount of compensation a person receives if their actions increased the likelihood that an incident occurred. Contributory negligence has to be established. Merely on presumptions and assumptions no contributory negligence could be fixed. In the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Vijayalaxmi and Others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 4845 (FB), the Hon'ble High Court has held thus:
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "NEGLIGENCE
11. Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind-conduct which involves an unreasonably great risk of causing damage.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission. It properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing. It is a question of law whether in any particular circumstances a duty of care exists. The question is was the defendant under any duty of care at all, and, if so, did he observe the standard required in the circumstances of the case? Foresight is the test for duty and remoteness. It is a characteristic of the definition of the tort of negligence that it does not refer to the scope of the protection it affords to the plaintiff but rather to the qualities of blameworthiness or fault to be attributed to the conduct of the defendant. There is no liability for negligence unless there is in the particular case a legal duty to take care, and this duty must be one which is owed to the plaintiff himself and not merely to others. This duty of carefulness is not universal; it does not extend to all occasions and all persons and all modes of activity. The harm to the plaintiff's interest which has in fact occurred must be of a kind against which it was the duty of the defendant to take precautions. In the absence of some existing duty the general principle is that there is no liability for a mere omission to act. The fundamental notion appears to be that the imposition of an obligation to take positive steps for the benefit of another requires that other should furnish something by way of consideration. The standard of conduct required by the common law is that of the reasonable man. The reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over-confidence. A reasonable man does not mean a paragon of circumspection. But he is also cool and collected and remembers to take precautions for his own safety even in emergency. So, while on the one hand an error of judgment may not amount to negligence, on the other hand the fact that kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE it might happen to him is not necessarily a defence - even the most careful are sometimes careless.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
12. The doctrine that, if the plaintiff's act was the proximate cause of the damage the plaintiff could not recover damage was a well-established principle of medieval law. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the conception of negligence as a ground of liability worked its way into the common law. With the recognition of negligence as a ground of liability a practice grew up of alleging that a plaintiff could not recover because he was debarred by his own negligence. The Rule of law is that if there is blame causing the accident on both sides, however small that blame may be on one side, the loss lies where it falls. When any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly on the fault of any other person or persons, the claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffered damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the Court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.
13. The question of contributory negligence does not depend upon any breach of duty as between the plaintiff and the defendant. All that the defendant is obliged to prove is that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions for his own safety in respect of the particular danger which in fact occurred, so that he thereby contributed to his own injury. This however is not to say that in all cases the plaintiff who is guilty of contributory negligence owes to the defendant no duty to act carefully. The governing principle is that the defendant must show that the plaintiff has failed to take reasonable care for his own safety in respect to the particular danger which has in fact occurred. The question whether the principle applies in any particular case is, as always, one of fact. Firstly, the law does not, in general, require any man to be careful of his own safety. What it does say is that a man who has negligently created a danger whereby another person is injured may plead as a way of avoiding liability that the injured person by his negligence contributed to kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE create the danger. Secondly, no question of operative contributory negligence arises in a case where the defendant proves that the plaintiff has failed to take precautions against a foreseeable danger which has not occurred and that those precautions, if taken, would have been effective to protect him against the unforeseeable danger which in fact occurred. The statement that the plaintiff must be shown to have failed to take proper precautions for his own safety against the particular danger which in fact occurred does not mean that the particular form in which the danger manifested itself should actually have occurred to his mind. It is sufficient if it is a danger of a particular class whose occurrence he should anticipate and take reasonable precautions to guard against him. It is necessary to consider not only the causative potency of a particular act, but also its blameworthiness, though culpability here, as elsewhere in the law of torts, means not so much moral blameworthiness as a departure from the standard of care of the reasonable man. The court must also consider a third factor - namely, what is just and equitable. Hence the precise percentage by which the award is reduced is a question of fact in each case. The Court should find and record the total damages which would have been awarded if the claimant had not been at fault. It is inappropriate to apply this principle when the responsibility of one of the parties is properly to be assessed at 100 per cent. The court cannot deal with minute percentages. It is a question of fact in each case whether the conduct of the plaintiff amounts to contributory negligence. The burden of proving the negligence of the plaintiff that contributed to the damage in such a way as to exonerate the defendant wholly or partially lies upon the defendant. The defendant must always establish such contributory negligence as will amount to a defence. When the court has to decide, that the case is one in which it is proper to apportion the loss between the parties, the result is that the plaintiff's damages are reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the plaintiff's share in the responsibility for the damage."
14. Even assuming that there was some negligence on the part of the applicant in not discharging the duties as required under kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the POSB Manual Volume-I, the appropriate action would be to impose the penalty coming within the ambit of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but fixing the contributory negligence to the extent of 40% on the supervisory staff and 60% on the operative staff based on the fraud/misappropriation amount, as a rule, without ascertaining the actual degree of negligence contributed by the officer/official is wholly unscientific and irrational. There cannot be any hard and fast rule or mathematical precision for fixing responsibilities of contributory negligence on the officers/officials to make good the loss suffered by the department owing to the fraud committed by the main offender. Apportionment of this recovery amount on the other officers/officials (identified as subsidiary offenders) leaving the main offender, as he is absconding, is totally unreasonable. It is the specific case of the applicant that no attempts have been made by the department to recover the fraud amount from the assets/properties of the main offender. It is hard to accept the responsibility fixed on the other officers/officials under the title contributory negligence in order to recover the loss made by the main offender on a fixed percentage basis unless the same is established.
15. Rules 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 prescribes procedure for imposing minor penalties "(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission on the advice of the Commission, to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and
(e) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour."
Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 reads thus:
"recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders"
Imposing of punishment under the said Rule should be in proportionate to the gravity of charges imputed. If a fraud is committed by one main offender and he is absconding, contributory share or apportionment made on the applicant based on fixed percentage basis, is dictatorial. The factum of contributory negligence is not static and it varies from case to case. In other words, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be uniformly prescribed or applied. The charges levelled against the applicant are not serious in nature, as such, minor penalty proceedings have been initiated, but surprisingly, the penalty imposed is grave in nature. Charge memo does not explicitly disclose the quantum of loss suffered by the department due to the alleged lapses on the part of the applicant. Identification of subsidiary offenders in a fraud case cannot be made in a casual manner sans disclosing the same in the charges framed. The fraud has been committed by the main offender from the year 2006 to 2017, the same has been detected after 11 years in the year 2017. The applicant was working at Karwar HPO from 20.08.2013 to 23.03.2016. It is not the initial stage of misappropriation as stated in the charge memo.
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Re. Point No. 2:
16. Rules 106 and 107 of P&T Manual Volume-III reads thus:
"106. In the case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence, or breach of orders by a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the 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 the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer shall be given due weight."
17. It is beneficial to refer to the Instructions dated 20.12.2022 issued by the Department of Posts, Vigilance Division, Government of India wherein the instructions issued vide DGPS DO letter dated 29.11.2021 has been reiterated. Para 3 of the said instructions is reproduced in the instructions dated 20.12.2022. The same reads thus:
"ln this context, a need has been felt to sensitize the Disciplinary Authorities about the adverse outcome of such faulty identification of offenders and making recovery from them for no lapse or the lapses, which are not relatable to the commission of a particular fraud. It should be clearly understood by the all Disciplinary Authorities that an official can be punished for good and sufficient reasons, but the penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on their part have led to the commission of fraud or misappropriation. This does not mean that for the alleged lapses, an official cannot be identified as subsidiary offender, but it is only to emphasize that in cases where the contributory negligence cannot be explicitly attributed to a kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE particular offender or pecuniary liability cannot be worked out, instead of the penalty of recovery, any other statutory penalty should be imposed. Wherever it is proposed to award penalty of recovery, the charge sheet should be drafted carefully to clearly indicate the loss due to lapses on the part of the official concerned. The instructions contained in this office communication no. DG P&T- No. 114/176/78- Disc.II dated 13.02.1981 Gol No.12(b) below Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 may also be referred to."
18. The quasi-judicial authorities are bound to consider these Rules/instructions in cases of contributory negligence before imposing the penalty of recovery. It should be established that the lapses on the part of the applicant has led to the commission of fraud/misappropriation to fix the contributory negligence. Imputation and findings of the authorities should denote that there was good and sufficient reasons for imposing a penalty of recovery from the pay towards a loss not directly caused by her but done by Shri Laxman G. Naik, BPM, Awara Road BO. Assessment of final liability is a factor to be determined based on evidence in fixing the contributory negligence. Easier process of recovery by summary proceedings, involving good lot of money, without holding any inquiry is against the principles of natural justice. Failure of the administration in not recovering the loss from the main offender itself is not the ground to fix the financial liability on the identified subsidiary offender. Failure of the best endeavours made to recover from the main offender is not forthcoming. Any frustrated inquiry against the real culprit is also not forthcoming. In our considered view, penalty of recovery based on standard percentage basis attributing pecuniary liability is not appropriate and the same requires reconsideration. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded in a narrow direction focusing only on the recovery which is not in conformity with law."
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10. The aforesaid decision being squarely applicable to the case on hand, the order of recovery issued by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority fixing the liability on the applicant assessing the share of contributory negligence to the tune of Rs. 3,38,652/- plus Rs. 2,22,424.14 towards normal and penal interest without any basis is arbitrary and whimsical. No straightjacket formula could be applied or some standard percentage basis could be adopted on all the subsidiary offenders in a mechanical way sans deciding the contributory negligence of each such subsidiary offender on the basis of the material evidence available. It is not forthcoming what exercise has been done by the respondents to recover the entire amount of loss caused to the government from the main offender quantified at Rs.
24,98,852/- plus interest (normal and penal). Merely for the reason that the main offender has credited an amount of Rs. 10,15,188/-
against loss of Rs. 24,98,852 plus Rs. 10,34,238.63 towards normal and penal interest, the balance amount cannot be equally distributed to all the subsidiary offenders towards their share of contributory negligence. The failure of administration in not recovering the entire loss from the main offender is not the ground to fix the financial liability on the identified subsidiary offender. The factum of kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE contributory negligence is not static and the same varies from case to case, as such, the impugned orders cannot be approved. Hence, the following:
:ORDER:
1) The impugned orders dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure-A6) and 22.06.2023 (Annexure-A8) issued by the Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 3, respectively are set aside.
2) The applicant shall submit explanation/representation to the charge memorandum dated 04.02.2022 before the Disciplinary Authority, Respondent No. 5, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
3) The Disciplinary Authority, Respondent No. 5, shall consider the explanation/representation to be submitted by the applicant and take an appropriate decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner in any event not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation/representation submitted by the applicant.
4) All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
kavya kavya shree k CAT, Bangalore shree k2025.02.17 14:38:46+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00607/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
5) It is made clear that recovery, if any, made from the other subsidiary offenders pursuant to the contributory negligence liability fixed on them, quantifying their share, in the absence of any challenge to the same, remains intact.
6) With the aforesaid observations and directions, OA stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
kavya kavya shree k
CAT, Bangalore
shree k2025.02.17
14:38:46+05'30'