Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
R Shivaramaiah vs D/O Post on 19 January, 2023
1 OA No.443/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00
NO.170/00443/2019
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri R.Shivaramaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o Ramanna,
Retired Postmaster,
Vijayanagar
nagar MDG BG-40,
BG
Residing at No.10, 1st Main,
Sanjeevininagara,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Bangalore - 560 091. ....Applicant
(ByAdvocate
ByAdvocate Shri B.Venkateshan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Represented
epresented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director of Postal Services,
Bangalore HQ Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2 OA No.443/2019
3. The Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices,
Bangalore West Division,
Bangalore
Bangalore-560 086. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Shri K.Gajendra Vasu)
O R D E R (ORAL
ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) "That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the concerned records from the respondents, peruse them and set aside the Memos No.F/4 No.F/4-2/12-13/Disc-16, dated 23.11.2017, at Annexure A6, issued by the Sr.Supdt of Post Offices, BG West Division, Bangalore and Memo No.BGR/VIG/14 9/2018, dated 44-2-19 at Annexure A8, No.BGR/VIG/14-9/2018, issued by the Director HQ Bangalore Region, by which a huge amount of Rs.1,06,141/-- was recovered from the applicant, in the interest of justice & equity.
(ii) To direct the respondents dents to refund the said amount to the applicant immediately with all consequential benefits accruing there from in the interest of justice.
(iii) To pass such orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of this application."
3 OA No.443/2019
2. Facts in brief as stated by the applicant are that the applicant joined service as Postal Assistant w.e.f. 19.04.1978.
19.04.1978. He was placed in TBOP and BCR grades in year 1994 and 2007. He was promoted to the cadre of LSG in the year 2007. On the option exercised by the applicant, he was posted as Grade-I G I Postmaster at Nagarbhavi PO with effect from 02.05.2011 and he was further further promoted to Grade Grade-II Postmaster and he was posted at Magadi Road PO with effect from 09.10.2014. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred transferred to Vijayanagar MDG, B BG-40 in the year 2017 and he retired from service with effect from 31.07.2018.
3. The applicant while working as Assistant Sub Sub-Postmaster at Vijayanagar MDG, Bangalore-40, Bangalore 40, in the year 2005, one Shri K.Govindarajulu, who was then working as SB Counter Clerk at Vijayanagar PO was alleged to have committed SB frauds amounting to Rs.9,74,106/ . It appears that a sum of Rs. 8,72,991/ Rs.9,74,106/-. 8,72,991/- plus Rs.10,000/-
towards interest was made good by Shri
Shr K.
K.Govindarajalu. The balance
amount with interest could not be recovered from him. After lapse of
about 12 years, the applicant was directed by the Respondent No.3 to credit a sum of Rs.1,06,141/-
Rs.1,06,141/ towards his share of contributory supervisory lapses in the said fraud committed by Shri K.Govindarajulu in the year 2005, by issuing a letter dated 24.07.2017. Being aggrieved aggrieved, the 4 OA No.443/2019 applicant has preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.2. The said appeal has been dismissed as time barred. Hence th this application.
4. Learned Counsel Shri B.Venkateshan representing the applicant would submit that the fraud was committed itted by one Shri K.Govindarajulu, the Counter Postal Assistant, Vijayanagar, MDG, Bangalore Bangalore-40. The Senior Superintendent uperintendent of Post Offices, s, who had recovered a major portion of loss ought to have recovered the balance amount also from him. The action of the respondents in recovering the loss from the applicant on the ground of contributory negligence is violative of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The proceedings were initiated in the year 2017 against the applicant for the fraud committed by Shri K.Govindarajulu in the year 2005. There being an inordinate delay in initi initiating disciplinary proceedings, the the order of penalty passed by the Di Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority requires to be set aside. Learned Counsel further argued that the Appellate Authority without examining the matter on the merits of the case has dismissed the same as time barred sans considering the satisfactory explanation offered by the applicant for condoning the delay of 10 months in filing the appeal. 5 OA No.443/2019
5. Learned Counsel Shri K.Gajendra Vasu appearing for the respondents referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that the applicant had worked as Assistant Postmaster (Supervisor) on the dates on which 14 fraudulent transact transactions ions took place in the SB Account Nos.4007649 No .4007649 and 4008080. The Normal Interest plus Penal Interest recoverable in the said 14 transactions which were handled by the applicant worked out to be Rs.1,06,141/ Rs.1,06,141/-. Hence the applicant was directed to credit the the same to UCR, which was part of loss sustained by the Department as a result of supervisory lapses of the applicant. Since the applicant did not credit the same, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued, for his failure to exercise ise proper supervisory checks in respect of 14 transactions made by the then counter Postal P Assistant,, Shri K.Govindarajulu, which led to huge frauds to the tune of Rs.9,74,016/-
Rs.9,74,016/ at Vijayanagar MDG. It was obligatory on the part of the applicant while wo working as Assistant Postmasterr (Supervisor) to check the vouchers. The applicant should not have allowed the withdrawals on 14 transactions made by Shri K.Govindarajulu without sufficient balance in the account and with difference in the signature of the account holder. The appeal filed belatedly against the penalty order of recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06.141/- from the pay and allowances of the applicant in eight instalments, being a 6 OA No.443/2019 part of loss sustained by the Department, is justifiable and requires to be confirmed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of OA.
6. We have carefully carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is pertinent pertinent to note that out of the defrauded amount of Rs.9,74,016/ an amount of Rs.8,72,991/- towards the principal amount Rs.9,74,016/-, and Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ towards the normal interest and penal interest was recovered from Shri K.Govindarajulu, he was dismissed from service. The defence taken in the reply statement is that the fraud Committed by the fraudster during 2005 came to light belatedly during 201 2013, the investigations and other aspects like recovery from the main offender, disciplinary action on main offender, settlement of claims, initiation of criminal case on the main offender etc., were were taken up on priority basis;
the he main offender of the case did not credit the amount in full, in spite of all efforts made by the Department. As such disciplinary action was initiated against the subsidiary offenders for for their contributory negligence, cannot be countenanced. Action would have been taken aga against all the offenders simultaneously.
simultaneously 7 OA No.443/2019
8. Be that as it may, the t correctness of the Disciplinary Authority issuing ing the penalty order after 12 years on the ground of charges of contributory negligence of the applicant said to have been proved, ought to have ave been examined by the Appellate Authority on merits.
9. The applicant has filed the appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority with delay and the sufficient cause shown was that he had met with an accident, accident the same could not have been negated on hyper technicalities. It I was the specific case of the applicant that no computer was provided to him to supervise the fraudster, certainly these aspects requires adjudication by the Appellate Authority. In our considered view view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking a lenient view delay caused in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority requires to be condoned. It is trite law that in the dispensation of justice, no litigant should suffer on the ground of hyp hyper technicalities. In the interest of justice and equity, taking aking a liberal approach approach, we condone the delay of about 10 months in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The matter is restored to the file of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, ly, the Appellate Authority is directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order on merits in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Compliance shall be made by the 8 OA No.443/2019 Appellate Authority in an expedite manner, in any event not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
10. In the result, OA stands disposed of in terms of above. No costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.