Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Vijay Kumar vs D/O Post on 31 July, 2018
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
O.A.060/00318/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on : 31.07.2018
Reserved on : 25.07.2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A)
OA No. 060/00318/2016
Vijay Kumar S/o Ved Parkash, posted as APM (SB), Head Post
Office, Ludhiana, R/o H. No. 43, Phase -2, Dugri, Ludhiana, District
Ludhiana.
...Applicant
BY ADVOCATE: None
Versus
1. Union of India through Ministry of Communication and IT,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan,
Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.
3. Director Postal Services (HQ), Punjab Circle, Sandesh
Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.
4. Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Ludhiana.
...Respondents
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta
ORDER
BY MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A):-
The applicant was working as Assistant Post Master (APM), SBSO Head Post Office, Ludhiana. While working as APM for various periods from 2005 to 2009, the applicant was required to check the posting of SB deposit/withdrawal vouchers posted by the Ledger Assistant working in SBS in Ludhiana Head Post Office. The work involved checking the hard copy with the soft copy in the 2 O.A.060/00318/2016 computer and point out any discrepancy or irregularity in the deposits or withdrawals made in the Savings Bank account. This included any overdrawal beyond the last balance in the account and any difference in the balance indicated in the withdrawal form and the Savings Bank ledger balance maintained in the Head Post Office. This was done as per Rule 48(ii) of POSB Manual Volume I. The work involved recording any irregularities committed by the Sub Post Office and communication of the same to the Sub Post Office in order to ensure settlement of irregularities and non-repetition of the same as per Rule 92(2) of POSB Manual Volume I.
2. The applicant failed to comply with the above procedure of Post Office Savings Bank Manual and one Sub Post Master (SPM), Partap Nagar, Sub Post Office committed a fraud by making fraudulent withdrawals from Savings Bank account, the details of which are listed in the statement of imputations of misconduct. This was done by forging the signatures of account holders on SB-7, Savings Bank withdrawal forms. There was a difference of balance noted in the Savings Bank withdrawal forms of these accounts and the Savings Bank record maintained in the Head Post Office. The signatures put in the applicant portion and receipt portion of withdrawal forms, against the space for depositors, also differ with the record of specimen signatures maintained in the application form for opening a Savings Bank account.
3. In the charge sheet, it has been indicated that the lapses on the part of the applicant facilitated the misappropriation of money 3 O.A.060/00318/2016 from the Savings Bank accounts to the tune of Rs. 6,24,000 by Sh. Rajinder Kumar Verma, Postmaster Partap Nagar Sub Post Office. Had the applicant exercised the check prescribed under Rule 48 (ii) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I, and maintained an objection register for recording various irregularities committed by Sub Post Office and communicated the same to Sub Post Office for settlement as required under Rule 92(2) of Savings Bank Manual Volume I, the instant fraud could have been detected and any further perpetration of the fraud could also have been averted.
4. The penalty imposed on the applicant was recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,17,995 in 33 instalments @ Rs. 6500 per month and Rs. 3495 as the 34th instalment. An appeal was filed by the applicant which was dismissed. Revision petition of applicant was also dismissed. The prayer of the applicant is to quash Annexures A-4, order of penalty, A-5, appeal and A-6, revision order.
5. The respondents confirm the posting of the applicant as Assistant Postmaster (APM) Savings Bank Sub Post Office in Ludhiana Head Post Office. Applicant was required to check the posting of Savings Bank Deposits and withdrawal vouchers with the computer software and sign at the foot of list of transactions in token of having checked the copy of the voucher sent by Sub Post Office with the soft copy in the computer. This exercise also involved noting any discrepancy or irregularity in the deposit or withdrawal voucher as required under Rule 48(2) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I. 4 O.A.060/00318/2016
6. It is necessary, at this stage, to reproduce Rule 48(ii) of Post Office Savings Bank Manaul for an understanding of the duties assigned to the applicant which is as follows:-
"(ii) The ledger Assistant should see that the seal is intact and examine the LOT to see if there are any erasures or alterations or any other suspicious circumstances. He should compare the entries in the LOT with the corresponding vouchers without breaking the seal to ensure that they are correct. He should also examine each voucher in accordance with the rules and note in the objection register of the office concerned any discrepancy or irregularity noticed. If the entries in the LOT agrees with the vouchers, etc., he should check the totals of the deposits, withdrawals and interest on closed accounts and then proceed to post them in the ledger cards, initialing against each entry in the remarks column of the LOT as it is posted. After posting all the vouchers, the binders along with the LOT impressed with the date stamp of the HO and sealed bundles of vouchers should be transferred to the Postmaster for check, who should sign at the foot of the LOT. The lists of documents should be filed SO wise in monthly bundles.
Due to not following the prescribed procedure as enlisted in the rules, frauds were committed by Partap Nagar Sub Postmaster in ten accounts totaling an amount of Rs. 6,24,000.
7. From a perusal of details of the fraud case submitted by the respondents in their reply statement, it is observed that the modus operandi is that while filling the withdrawal form, the column relating to balance after transaction in the Sub Post Office showed the existence of certain sum of money in the accounts whereas the untampered record in the Head Post Office showed the correct balance which was minus. Had the hard copies of the vouchers been checked properly with software, the fact of a minus balance account would have surfaced and the account could have been frozen so as 5 O.A.060/00318/2016 to prevent Partap Nagar Sub Postmaster from making fraudulent withdrawal.
8. There were also cases where the balance of transactions was shown as a higher amount in LOT/vouchers sent by the Sub Post Office whereas the Head Post Office record showed a lower balance. Here again, if physical vouchers and LOT been properly checked with balance maintained at the Head Post Office, this discrepancy would have been noticed. Hence, there is no doubt that due to non-performance of supervisory duty by the applicant of checking the physical vouchers with the software balance, the Post Master Partap Nagar was able to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 6,24,000 from the Savings Bank account of various persons. Here, it would be necessary to note that people of average means or small means would be the persons who hold accounts in post offices and to misappropriate their hard earned money is a crime which needs to be dealt with severely, as there has been a breach of trust in entrusting their money with the Post Office, whose officials were responsible for the security of the money so maintained in the Savings accounts.
9. The fraudulent withdrawals were made with forged signatures which should also have been noted at the time of checking as it would have varied from the signatures of the holders of the savings banks accounts.
10. Had the applicant ensured the maintenance of an objection register and followed the provisions of Rule 48(ii) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Volume I, these irregularities of the sub 6 O.A.060/00318/2016 post office would have come to notice in the Head Post Office under the double checking process or the checking by another authority of all the deposit/withdrawal transactions made by a subordinate authority.
11. Thus, there has been a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the applicant. We also note that the applicant has been let off leniently by recovering only a sum of Rs. 2,17,995/- out of a total defrauded amount of Rs. 6,24,000/-. The applicant has been let off with recovery of only a portion of the defrauded amount, may be, with the intention to implement the law of proportionality. Applicant has no case that he had not been given a fair chance of hearing during the inquiry proceedings or that the inquiry proceedings were not conducted as per the prescribed rule book.
12. The applicant's argument that the fraud was committed by another employee and hence he should not be held responsible is not acceptable as the applicant has a clear supervisory responsibility of watching over the transactions of deposits and withdrawals made by the sub post master and the clear negligence on his part of detecting the withdrawal when the savings bank account was in minus balance or detecting the difference in balance, after transaction noted in the savings bank withdrawal form and the ledger of the same account maintained in the Head Post Office cannot be ignored or let off on the ground of the subordinate committing the fraud. This is a case of contributory negligence wherein the applicant, due to non- performance of duty, could not detect the fraud when a subordinate 7 O.A.060/00318/2016 post master, whose work he was supervising as Assistant Postmaster Savings Bank Sub Post Office, was committing from June 2005 to January 2009. The applicant, due to his supervisory negligence, allowed the Sub Post Master to virtually withdraw money from the savings account of savings bank customers over a period of 4-1/2 years. This dereliction of duty cannot be overlooked or any pecuniary measure undertaken in pursuance of the dereliction be excused or condoned.
13. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with findings of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority when they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent official is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act or legislature or rules made under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an inquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the punishment meets the ends of justice, the need for judicial interference is minimal. If the penalty imposed can lawfully be imposed, and is imposed on a proved misconduct, the Tribunal generally has no power to substitute its own discretion on that of the competent authority. The Tribunal also cannot interfere if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence, such as is adduced in a departmental inquiry. Neither 8 O.A.060/00318/2016 the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceedings.
14. We do not find that this case is inconsistent with rules of natural justice or is in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry and this is also not a case which is based on no evidence. From the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this OA and accordingly dismiss the same. No order as to costs.
(P. GOPINATH) MEMBER (A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Dated:
ND*