Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Arvindkumar vs D/O Post on 24 July, 2025
::1 :: OA No. 504/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BECH
O.A. No. 504/2017 with M.A.No.438/2017
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2025.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Shri Arvindkumar
DoB : 05-03-1967, Age 50 years
Son of Shri Ramswarup Lal
Manager, Business Development Cell,
O/o the Postmaster General,
Vadodara Region, Vadodara - 390 002.
Residing at: F- 304, Park Plaza, Nr. Kunal Crossing,
Subhanpura, Vadodara - 390 023.......................... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. A D Vankar and Mr. M B Navani)
V/s.
1. The Union of India & others
Notice to be served through
Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
Department of Posts, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chief Postmaster General,
Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad - 380 001.
3. Postmaster General, Vadodara Region,
Vadodara 390 002.
4. Director Postal Services,
O/o The Postmaster General,
Vadodara Region, Vadodara - 390 002.................... Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. R R Patel)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. Considering the grounds stated in the MA No.438/2017, the same is allowed and delay caused in filing of the OA is condoned.
KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::2 :: OA No. 504/2017
2. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs: -
"i) May be pleased to admit and allow this original application.
ii) May pleased to declare the impugned Orders No.
(a) STA/11-03/AK/2013 dated 3/7-5-2013 issue by Director Postal Services, Vadodara and annexed at Annexure A-1,
(b) STA/11-03/AK/2013 dated 24-12-2013 issued by Director Postal Services, Vadodara and annexed at Annexure A-2
(c) STA/3-2-2/AK/2014 dated 26-05-2014 issued by Postmaster General, Vadodara Region, Vadodara annexued at annexure A-3 AND
(d) Staff/31-34/301/2016 dated 20-9-2016 issued by Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad and annexued at Annexure A-4 as unjust, unfair, irrational, unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary, vindictive, discriminative and bad in law and to quash and set-aside the same.
iii) May be pleased to direct the respondents to modify punishment of recovery to the extent of Rs. 13260/- as a part of 1/3 of 10% of total defrauded amount of Rs. 3, 97,800/- instead of Rs. 1,33,489/-.
iv) May be pleased to direct the respondents to refund entire amount credited excess to Rs. 13260/- to the applicant forthwith and
v) May be pleased to grant such other and further relief as deemed appropriate.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under: -
3.1 While the applicant was working as Asstt. Supdt. Of West Sub Dn. Surat, he was served with the impugned charge memorandum dated 3/7.05.2013 (Annexure A/1) proposing to take action under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against him for alleged failure of not verifying passbooks of two discontinued R.D. Accounts during the course of Annual KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::3 :: OA No. 504/2017 Inspection of Sherkhi Branch Post-Office for the year 2007 and 2008 when he was working as Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts) of West Sub Division Vadodara. It is alleged that had he carried out the inspections as outlined in BO questionnaire No. 16 (A) read with Rule 21 and 300 of Postal Manual Vol-III and checked "any of two RD Accounts from the list mentioned in the charge sheet, fraud could have been unearthed on the day of inspection itself and further fraud would have been prevented.
Thus, the applicant's laxity in carrying out the inspection has facilitated the commitment of fraud of Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 6,50,443/- and thereby it is alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty as required of him vide Rule 3 (i) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3.2 In response to the said charge memorandum, applicant denied the allegation by way of submitting his representation on 08.07.2013 (Annexure A/5) wherein he had explained that he had carried out the inspection at Sherkhi BO as per provision of the Rules. The verification of RD discontinued accounts is to be done from "the list of RD discontinued accounts" received from Account Office. But, in this case same is not supplied to him by the AO. There is no specific rule or order regarding a particular account is to be verified as mentioned in the charge sheet. Further, as mentioned in the charge sheet that "only two RD discontinued accounts to be verified randomly" which he had already done while the inspection carried out at the BO. Hence, the charges levelled against him is quite irregular and against the law of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, he requested the Disciplinary Authority to drop the charges levelled against him.
3.3 However, without considering the representation of the applicant in its true letter and spirit, the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,33,489/- as a contributory negligence on the part of applicant herein vide order dated KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::4 :: OA No. 504/2017 24.12.2013 (Annexure A/2) which is impugned in the present OA.
3.4 Being aggrieved by aforesaid punishment of recovery order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant had preferred appeal on 08.03.2014 (Annexure A/6) before the Postmaster General, Voadodara. The said appeal was rejected by Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure A/3).
3.5 Thereafter, the applicant had preferred petition on 11.12.2014 (Annexure A/7) before the Revisionary Authority and Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad. The aforesaid petition was came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure A/4).
Hence, the present OA.
4. Mr. A D Vankar, learned counsel for the applicant in support of the prayer sought in the OA, mainly argued as under: -
4.1 The entire decision making process suffers from vice of gross procedural irregularities, illegalities and irrationalities which ultimately goes to the root of decision making process and makes the entire process null and void.
4.2 It is alleged against the applicant that "had the applicant followed the prescribed procedure, the subsequent fraud could have been detected early". The said allegation as such a purely hypothetical and it is well settled law of disciplinary jurisprudence that "fraud could have been prevented cannot be a cause either for issuance of charge sheet or to make it base for awarding function". In departmental inquiries there is no room for assumption, presumption or surmises. Therefore the DA has committed gross procedural error to form hypothetical opinion and as such the applicant has been made victim unlawfully and KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::5 :: OA No. 504/2017 illegally. As per the instructions contained in DG, PMT letter dated 13.02.1981 which is produced as GOI Note No. 23 (b) below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, there must be specific mention of total loss and the said loss sustain due to negligence of the applicant as to how fraud has been averted and rational calculation of share of so called fraud attributable to the applicant (Annexure A/8 refer). Further, in terms of Rule 11 read with said letter dated 13.02.1981, if one who is not responsible for the original fraud cannot be questioned for preventing the said fraud. However, the applicant has wrongly been made responsible merely on surmises, hence; the impugned order is bad in law.
4.3 The DG (posts) vide letter dated 14.11.2006 have reiterated earlier instruction no. 23 (a) below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, for fixing contributory negligence and inflicting penalty of recovery in the said instructions, it is stipulated that (i) "only when it is established that the Government servant is directly responsible for financial loss, penalty of recovery under Rule 11
(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, can be imposed". And (ii) "....... the competent authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an officer and while determining any omission of 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".
By referring the aforesaid instructions issued by the DG (Post), the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herein was directly did not involve in so called fraud nor had he committed any omission which may prove his contributory negligence. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority has committed procedural infirmity imposing huge and unbearable KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::6 :: OA No. 504/2017 recovery which is directly violation of binding instructions referred herein above.
4.4 It is stated that the applicant has clarified from time to time from the initial stage of submitting application till preferring revision petition that he had carried out inspection of Serkhi Branch PO for the year 2007-08 as per Hindi Version of BO inspection questionnaire in which there is no provision against para 16-A to check two discontinued RD Accounts. In support of the said submission, learned counsel placed reliance on para 16-A of BO questionnaire printed in Hindi (Annexure A/13 refer). At the same time, learned counsel would argue that there is provision to check and confirm balance in RD Passbooks which was carried out with the satisfactory results. Therefore, the alleged charge for non checking two discontinued RD passbooks has wrongly been imputed upon the applicant to make him scapegoat.
4.5 Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that as per procedure prescribed under Rule 204 & 204(A) of Postal Manual Vol.III, recovery of entire defrauded amount has to be recovered from the principal offender even applying Rent Recovery Act and thereafter, amount if any left to be recovered, the same has to be make good from subsidiary offenders by either imposing recovery or initiating Disciplinary Action. However, in the present case, nothing has been disclosed about efforts made by the respondents to recover entire defrauded amount from GDS BPM Sherkhi Branch, Post Office or even after making efforts as stated above extent upto which defrauded amount was left to be recovered with ration calculation of amount order for recovery from the applicant. In absence of following the said statutory prescribed recovery process, penalty of imposing recovery of Rs. 1,33,489/- against the applicant is wholly irrational inequities and highly excessive in comparison KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::7 :: OA No. 504/2017 of gravity alleged misconduct of the applicant. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law.
4.6 It is stated that since the applicant is not personally responsible for causing any peculiar loss to the Government, the impugned order are bad in law. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on order passed by CAT, Madras Bench in C.N. Harihar Nandan Vs Presidency Postmaster Madras GPO & Another reported in 1988 (8) ATC 678, order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 54/2004 decided on 09.03.2004 in the case of Smt. Hemlata R. Kapadia Vs UOI & Ors. (Annexure a/10 refer) and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 403/2005 decided on 19.04.2005 in the case of Shivrambhai M. Leuva vs UOI & Ors. (Annexure A/11 refer).
4.7 It is submitted that the alleged charges for non preventing ongoing fraud being committed by Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Postmaster Sherkhi since 2008 have been framed on hypothetical ground holding the applicant indirectly responsible. Thus, the said conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority in not tenable in light of the settled law to the effect that unless and until, the applicant is not charged for misappropriation of Government money, no recovery can be imposed as a part of defrauded amount. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 1080/PB/2010 in case of Sub Postmaster, Milani Sub Office Vs UOI & Ors. decided on 02.11.2011 wherein by relying on the decision passed in the case of Smt. Kalpana Shinde Vs UOI & Ors [reported in 2005 (1) ATJ 45], it has been alleged therein that in absence of any charge of misappropriation of Government money and in absence of any charge of doubtful integrity, punishment of recovery of pecuniary loss sustained by the Govt. in shape of contributory negligence cannot be KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::8 :: OA No. 504/2017 awarded. Therefore, it is submitted that in the present case, neither the applicant herein is directly responsible for alleged fraud nor he himself had committed any fraud and therefore, penalty of recovery of huge amount is wholly unjust, unfair, irrational and not sustainable before eyes of law.
4.8 Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority had perused a copy of Hindi version of B.O. questionnaire and inter alia the said authorities have also agreed with the submissions of the applicant that there is no provision in Hindi version of para 16 A of BO Inspection questionnaire about checks of two discontinued RD Pass books. Therefore, they ought to have come to prudent and considered conclusion to exonerate the applicant from unsustainable charges. However, inspite of this, they have upheld the recovery on irrelevant and extraneous consideration which has caused gross injustice to the applicant herein.
4.9 It is submitted that the respondents have identified the applicant as subsidiary offender which is wholly unlawful, unjust and discriminatory. The authorities should have overview of entire case before arriving at his prudent and final conclusion to award recovery proportionately in commensurate of gravity of alleged misconduct.
It is stated that as per the maximum "Stare-decisis", the Disciplinary is forbidden to impose lesser punishment for server offence and stringent for lesser offence. However, in the present case, the applicant has been treated the applicant differently and discriminately by way of awarding severe, harsh and unbearable punishment of recovery of huge amount for no fault of the applicant. In this regard, learned counsel would argue that the then Asstt. Supdt. Of Post Offices, West Division Vadodara who was also identified as subsidiary offender in same fraud case of KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::9 :: OA No. 504/2017 Sherkhi Branch Post-Office for which the applicant has also been punished as subsidiary offender whereas in the case of said Mr. M J Varma, after awarding punishment of recovery has been let off by the same Revisionary Authority and Chief Postmaster General, vide order dated 27.05.2016. Further, it is noted that said Shri M J Varma while carrying out inspection of Sherkhi BO had verified two discontinued RD Accounts in which later on fraud was detected in those RD discontinued accounts which were reported to have been verified by said Shri Varma. However, he has been let off with recovery of Rs. 30,000/- (Annexure A/14 refer).
4.10 Learned counsel further submits that the same Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad while functioning as Revisionary Authority who had upheld the punishment of recovery of the applicant and had applied totally different criteria while deciding petition of one Shri M. D. Danani, Asstt. Supdt. Of Valsad Sub Division passed on 16.6.2017, the relevant finding reads as under : -
"....... The disciplinary authority while fixing contributor negligence has to see that how much scope has inspectorial staff have during course of annual inspection. The inspectors or ASPs are allotted one day for annual inspection of a BO he has to complete the same by checking the prescribed transactions according to standard questionnaire. It will be proper to fix 10% of the amount total defrauded amount without including interest and panel interest as contributory part of the lapses reported against the inspectorial staff....."
By referring the aforesaid order passed in the case of Mr. M D Danani dated 16.06.2017, Learned counsel for the applicant, would further argue that the said M D Dadani was awarded 1/5th individual share of total defrauded amount after distributing amongst all the five inspectorial staff. However, same criteria have not been applied in the case of the applicant by the very same Revisionary Authority.
KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::10 :: OA No. 504/2017 4.11 Therefore, it is argued that the impugned order i.e., the order passed by the Revisionary Authority dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure A/4) in the case applicant herein needs to be quashed with a direction to modify impugned punishment orders by adopting the same analogy and criteria applied in the case of Mr. M D Dadani (Annexure A/15 refer).
4.12 According to the learned counsel as per the ratio applied in Danani's case, contributory negligence of the applicant comes to 1/3 of 10% of defrauded amount from discontinued R D Accounts as three subsidiary offenders were identified from Inspectorial cadre in the alleged case mentioned in the charge memorandum. In view of this, 10% of defrauded amount of Rs. 3,97,800/- and dividing the same amongst three subsidiary offenders of Inspectorial Staff, the applicant is to be made responsible for contributory negligence to the extent of Rs. 13260/- and not for Rs. 1,33,489/-. Therefore, the quantum of punishment is required to be intervened by this Tribunal to that extent.
5. Per contra; respondents have filed their reply and denied the contentions raised by the applicant.
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant herein while working as IPO Vadodara West Sub Division had failed to verify 02 RD Discontinued Accounts as prescribed under Question No. 16 (A) of BO Questionnaire during annual inspection of Sherkhi BO (Koyli PO) for the year - 2007 & 2008 on 10.05.2007 and 14.06.2008 respectively. This has resulted into non detection of fraud to the tune of Rs. 6,50,443/-. Therefore, the applicant was issued a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964.
5.2 Thereafter, by considering the representation of the applicant and keeping in view the loss sustained by the Government due KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::11 :: OA No. 504/2017 to applicant's contributory negligence, the Disciplinary Authority imposed only penalty of recovery of Rs 1,33,489/- to be recovered in thirteen installments upon the applicant herein. The Disciplinary Authority has assigned cogent reason for its finding and conclusion as recorded in the impugned order dated 24.12.2013.
5.3 It is stated that by assigning cogent reasons the appeal of the applicant has been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.05.2014 which is impugned in the present case. Thereafter, applicant has filed Revision Petition dated 11.12.2024 before the CPMG Ahmedabad, which was also rejected vide order dated 20.09.2016. Therefore, it can be seen that applicant has been provided due opportunity to defend his case at every stage and thereby principle of natural justice has been followed in its true letter and spirit.
5.4 It is submitted that the GDS BPM Sherkhi, BO had accepted the deposits in 4 (four) RD Account in the year, 2007 & 10 RD Accounts in the year, 2008. Neither the said GDS BPM brought this amount in Government accounts nor did he mention about those deposits in any of the branch office records. It is the duty of the inspecting officer to check any two RD Accounts as per questionnaire No 16 (A) of BO in order to detect irregularities if any committed at the branch officer. But, the applicant, during the inspection of 2007 & 2008, did not take care to attend this question, which resulted in non -detection of fraud at Sherkhi BO. Thus, keeping in view of the contributory negligence being committed by the applicant and taking into consideration huge loss of the Govt. exchequer, the applicant was imposed with penalty of recovery after following due process in accordance with the rules. Hence, the impugned orders imposed upon the applicant are just and proper.
KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::12 :: OA No. 504/2017 5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while rejecting the submission /explanation of the applicant that nothing has been mentioned about checking of any two RD Accounts in the Hindi version of said questionnaire of para 16 of the BO, and by following the said Hindi version, he had submitted his inspection report (IR), therefore, the allegation levelled against him is not tenable, the Appellate Authority recorded its finding that on bare perusal of inspection report for the year 2007, it is found that the officer has clearly mentioned in para 15 & 16 (II) that "verified Discontinued RD Accounts with satisfactory result". When so called question did not speak up for verification of RD Accounts in Hind version, then how and by which questionnaire, he had attended the said question. Therefore, the officer has as such attended the question from English version of BO questionnaire and the arguments as offered by the officer are far from the truth. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority had upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. By agreeing with the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the Revision Application of the applicant was also rejected by the Revisionary Authority by recording cogent reasons for it. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to state that the grounds raised by him in his appeal and Revision application had not been considered. Even, otherwise it is established that due to negligence on the part of the applicant, the GDS BPM was able to commit fraud of non depositing money in the Government Account.
5.6 Had the applicant checked the two RD discontinued accounts during the inspection and brought to the notice of the irregularities at the relevant time, the fraud could have been prevented. Therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned order about contributory negligence on the part of the applicant KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::13 :: OA No. 504/2017 is just and proper and the penalty awarded is also commensurate with the gravity of the charge proved against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as sough for in this OA.
6. Applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submission made in the OA. Additionally, it is stated that the applicant being inspectorial staff had to carryout inspection of the Branch Post office and therefore it is wholly false and misleading on the part of the respondents to aver that neither applicant brought the amount in Government Accounts nor did he mentioned about those deposits in any of the Branch Office records. It is submitted that it was prime duty of respective Branch Postmaster to maintain and bring amount on Government Account of the particular Branch where he is working. In the present case the concerned Branch Postmaster alleged to have been failed to do so for which the applicant who was only an inspectoral staff and he should not be made liable for such punishment.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7.1 It emerges from the record that in terms of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposing minor penalty upon the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority had issued memorandum dated 03/07.05.2013 alongwith the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, wherein it has been alleged against the applicant that "while he was working as IPO West Sub Division (under office of SSPOs, Vadodara, West Division), he had carried out the Annual Inspection of Shekhri Branch Office (i.e., Koyli SO) for the year 2007 & 2008 on 10.05.2007 and 14.06.2008 respectively. As per 16 (A) of BO Questionnaire, he was required to check any two RD Discontinued Accounts standing at the Branch Post Office.
KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::14 :: OA No. 504/2017 Further, it is alleged that prior to his inspection the GDS BPM of Shekhri BO (Koyli SO) namely one Shri H R Padihar had accepted the deposits in respect of SB/RD Accounts and made the entries of deposits in passbooks duly impressing date, stamp and failed to credit the amount in the Government Account. By adopting said modus operandi, the said GDS BPM had committed the fraud in 18 SB Account amounting to Rs. 2,33,050/- and 49 RD Accounts amounting to Rs. 3,97,800/- as well Cash & Stamp balance amounting to Rs. 19,593/- in total Rs. 6,50,443/- and thereby all these accounts were discontinued at the time of inspection carried out by the applicant herein.
It is alleged that had the applicant carried out the inspection as outlined in the BO questionnaire and checked any of two RD Accounts from the list given in the memorandum, fraud could have been unearthed on the day of inspection itself and further fraud could have been prevented.
Thus, laxity in carrying out the inspection has facilitated the commitment of fraud of Government money. Therefore, it is alleged that the applicant has acted in contravention of question no. 16 (A) of BO questionnaire read with Rule 21 and 300 of Postal Manual Vol. VIII and thereby he has alleged to have failed to maintain devotion to duty as required of him by Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) rules, 1964".
7.2 It is noticed that on receipt of aforesaid charge memorandum, the applicant herein has submitted his defence representation dated 08.07.2013 and denied the alleged charges levelled against him. He had also stated therein that the verification of RD discontinued accounts is to be done from the list of RD discontinued account received from the Account Office, but the same is not supplied to him by Sherkhi B.O or with the charge memorandum, therefore, in absence of which, he was not able to KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::15 :: OA No. 504/2017 give particulars of verified accounts. He has also stated that he has not violated any provision of Rules as alleged in the chargesheet.
Further, it emerges from the record that without supplying the list of RD discontinued account of Sherkhi Branch Office to the applicant and by not holding any full-fledge departmental inquiry as provided under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded further in terms of Rule 16 and passed penalty order dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure A/2). The Disciplinary Authority had recorded its finding that during the period 2006 to 2011, one Shri H R Padhiyar, GDS BPM, Sherkhi BO (Koyli SO) had accepted the deposit in SB/RD Accounts, made entry of deposits in passbooks, impressed date stamp impression and authenticated the deposit in respective pass books, but he failed to credit the amount in the Government Account.
Further, it has been held by the Disciplinary Authority that the CO had not carried out annual inspection of Sherkhi B.O. in account with Koyli SO for the year 2007-08 on 10.5.2007 and 14.6.2008 respectively as per BO questionnaire. Had the applicant carried out the inspection of the said Sherkhi BO (Koyli SO) as outlined in para 16 (A) of BO Questionnaire and verified any two RD Discontinued Accounts/Passbooks during the inspection fraud could have prevented and thereby the applicant had facilitated the commitment of fraud to the tune of Rs, 6,50,443/-. Accordingly, for such loss to the Government, adjudging the negligence of the each individuals and keeping in view the contributory negligence on the part of applicant, the said Disciplinary Authority passed an order for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,33,489/- from the pay & allowances of the applicant herein.
KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::16 :: OA No. 504/2017 7.3 It is noticed that the order dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure A/2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure A/3), as also by the Revisionary Authority vide order dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure A/4) which are impugned in the present OA.
7.4 The core submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to assess contributory negligence in realistic manner while identifying him as subsidiary offender which is wholly unlawful, unjust and discriminatory. The authorities should have overview of entire case before arriving at his prudent and final conclusion to award recovery proportionately in commensurate of gravity of alleged misconduct. In this regard, it is submitted that as per the maximum "Stare-decisis", the Disciplinary Authority is forbidden to impose lesser punishment for severe offence and stringent for lesser offence. The applicant has been treated differently and discriminately by way of awarding severe, harsh punishment of recovery of huge amount for no fault on his part.
In this regard, learned counsel would also argue that the then Asstt. Supdt. Of Post Offices, West Division Vadodara namely one Shri M.J.Varma who was also identified as subsidiary offender in the same fraud case of Sherkhi Branch Post-Office for which the applicant has also been punished as subsidiary offender whereas in the case of said Shri Mr. M J Varma, after awarding punishment of recovery has been 'let off' with recovery of only Rs.30,000/- by the same Revisionary Authority vide order dated 27.05.2016.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner and the same is discriminatory in nature. The applicant has not been KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::17 :: OA No. 504/2017 treated equally, hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
7.5 In support of the aforesaid contention that discriminatory and arbitrary treatment has been meted out in the case of the applicant herein, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 13.2.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. & others (SLP (Civil) No.1334/2013) and contended that the doctrine of equality applied to all who are equally placed, even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident.
7.6 The respondents attempted to justify their stand to impose penalty of recovery of huge amount from the pay of the applicant while conducting the inquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules. According to the respondents, the said penalty is as such minor penalty in terms of the provision of Rule 11 to be read with Rule 16 and thus due to established contributory negligence of the applicant, the impugned orders are just and proper.
8. Undisputedly, there is no charge levelled against the applicant about misappropriation of Government money.
8.1 Further, it is noticed that the Disciplinary authority recorded its finding that one Shri H.R.Padhiar, GDS BPM, Sherkhi BO (Koyli SO) had accepted the deposits in respect of SB/RD Accounts and made the entries of deposits in the pass book duly impressing the date stamp and failed to credit the amount in the Government account by adopting said modus operandi, the said GDS BPM had committed the fraud prior to the inspection of the said Sherkhi Branch. The charges levelled against the KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::18 :: OA No. 504/2017 applicant is to the effect that had he carried out the inspection, has outline in BO questionnaires and check any to RD Discontinued Accounts, the fraud which was committed by one Shri H.R.Padhiar could have prevented and the laxity in carry out the instruction has facilitated the said fraud.
8.2 It is suffice to state that the Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reason for its opinion not to hold any detailed inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rule 3 to 24 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and without giving due opportunity to the CO to meet with the allegation in full fledge inquiry the impugned orders of recovery of huge amount from the applicant in our considered view is suffers from the legal infirmities of violation of principle of natural justice and such penalty of recovery of huge amount that too under the provision of Rule 16 is held to be arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs C P Singh (WP No. 5685/2001) decided on 02.09.2001).
8.3 It is noticed that the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs CP Singh (supra) while answering the question whether any inquiry can be dispensed with where the penalty proposed is recovery of pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders categorized as a "Minor Penalty" and whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the penalty of recovery without inquiry, by referring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in O.K. Bhardwaj Vs Union of India reported in 2001 (9) SCC 180 and the judgment passed in Food Corporation of India Vs A. Prahalada Rao reported in 2001 (1) SCC 165 held that "......the fastening of pecuniary liability on the basis of negligence or breach of orders, involves decision on what is the quantum of pecuniary loss and whether the pecuniary loss KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::19 :: OA No. 504/2017 claimed includes any remote damage and whether the employer has taken steps to mitigate the loss also the issue whether the charge officer was given any specific duties and whether there was any negligence or breach of order on the part of the employee while performing such duties as also whether the negligence or breach of order has resulted in any financial loss to the employer, this are not matters that could be decided without evidence or without giving any opportunity to the employee to let in evidence. Therefore, where the charge of negligence or breach of lawful order is denied, a regular inquiry is absolutely necessary before fastening financial liability on the employee by way of punishment of recovery of pecuniary loss of the applicant. Any attempt to fasten any higher monetary liability on an employee without a regular inquiry by terming it as minor penalty would be travesty of justice.
By recording the aforesaid observations and findings, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority by holding it arbitrary in the said case.
8.4 Further, it is apt to mention that there is no denial to the fact that the then Asstt. Supdt. Of Post Offices, West Division Vadodara namely one Shri M.J.Varma who was also identified as subsidiary offender in the same case of Sherkhi Branch Post- Office, has been 'let off' with recovery of only Rs.30,000/- by the same Revisionary Authority vide order dated 27.05.2016, whereas, the applicant herein who was lower in rank as compared to said Shri M.J. Varma has been awarded higher penalty of recovery of huge amount for the identical allegation of contributory negligence.
It is noticed that in another identical case of alleged contributory negligence, and holding one Shri M. D. Danani, KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::20 :: OA No. 504/2017 Asstt. Supdt. of Valsad Sub Division as subsidiary offender, the very said Revisionary Authority had adopted different criteria and while modification of the penalty had imposed only 10% of the amount total defrauded amount without including interest and panel interest as contributory part of the lapses reported against the inspectorial staff.
8.5 Since the aforesaid order passed by the Revisionary Authority in the identical cases/ in the case of co-delinquent imposing lesser punishment has not been refuted by the respondents, therefore, we find substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents had acted with the delinquent differently in the award of punishment and the said action on the part of the respondents would be discriminatory.
8.6 At this stage, it is profitable to refer the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P vs. Raj Pal Singh reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783, wherein it has been held that "when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then, to deal with the delinquent differently in the award of punishment would be discriminatory."
Further, in, DGP vs. G.Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, underlined, "the need to maintain parity in the matter of punishment."
8.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav v/s.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73: (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 476 while considering the issue regarding proportionality of penalty / punishment and parity with co-delinquents held that :
"The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::21 :: OA No. 504/2017 same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position in respect to imposition of lesser punishment to the officer who has higher responsibility than the applicant herein that too, for the same incident, therefore, we find substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he has not been treated equally along with other similarly placed officers and even the officers who are higher in rank has been awarded lesser punishment than the applicant herein.
In the present case, as noted herein above, undisputedly, higher monetary liability has been imposed upon the applicant by way of impugned penalty order by terming it as a minor penalty.
Thus, in our considered opinion, the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed even among persons who are found guilty as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid referred judgment passed in Rajendra Yadav (Supra) including in the case on hand.
In other words, we find that the punishment awarded to the applicant herein is disproportionate to the punishment awarded to the similarly situated other co-delinquent officers and as such the applicant herein has not been treated equally.
10. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the applicant in respect to the quantum of punishment imposed upon the applicant as the same punishment which is as such disproportionate as noted herein above.
KHAMBHATI 2025.07.25 NILESH 16:16:48+05'30' KANTILAL ::22 :: OA No. 504/2017
11. It is suffice to state that the Disciplinary Authority as also the Reviewing Authority in the present case had imposed a comparatively lighter punishment to the other co-delinquent who are as such higher in rank and at the same time, harsher punishment was imposed upon the applicant herein, the said approach for imposition of higher penalty that too without any full-fledge inquiry cannot be permitted under the law as per discussion made hereinabove. The said impugned punishment orders in our considered view found to be shocking to this Tribunal's conscience in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajendra Yadav. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the applicant herein.
12. Consequently, we partly allow the present OA by setting aside the impugned punishment order dated 24.12.2013 (Annex. A/2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order dated 26.5.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 20.9.2016 passed by the Revisionary Authority (Annexure A/3 & A/4 respectively) and remit the matter to the Competent Authority for consideration and passing of appropriate order by treating the applicant equal for the purpose of imposition of punishment as the same has been done in case of the co- delinquent such as the then Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices, West Division, Vadodara namely one Shri M.J.Varma and the order passed by the Revisionary Authority in the case of Shri M. D. Danani, Asstt. Supdt. of Valsad Sub Division, as referred hereinabove including the order of refund to be payable to the applicant, if any.
13. It is expected that the Competent Authority shall complete the exercise as directed hereinabove not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and any decision thereon be intimated to the applicant forthwith. No order as to costs.
(Dr.Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member(J)
Nk/PA
KHAMBHATI
2025.07.25
NILESH
16:16:48+05'30'
KANTILAL