Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Anneppa Sherikar vs D/O Posts on 1 September, 2023
1 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/0
NO.170/00262/2022
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Anneppa Sherikar,
S/o Sri Zareppa Sherikar,
Aged 59 years,
Working as LSG Postal Assistant,
Head Post Office,
Bidar -585401,
-
Residing at Tadola,
Taluk: Basavakalyan -585331. ...Applicant
(By
By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi -110001.
2. The Director of Postal Services,
N.K.Region,
O/o the Postmaster General,
N.K.Region, Dharwad -580001.
2 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bidar Division,
Bidar--585401. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.Sugumaran)
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 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the (a) Memo No.F No.F-IV/02/2018-19 Dated at Bidar, the 12.12.2019, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure A11 and (b) Memo No.NKR/VIG/Appeal/020/2020 No.NKR/VIG/Appeal/020/2020 Dated @ Dharwad 580001, the 09.03.2020 Annexure A13. Dharwad-580001,
(ii) Direct the respondents to refund Rs.2,43,000/ Rs.2,43,000/- to the applicant and also refund the amount recovered in pursuan pursuance of the order dated 12.12.2019, Annexure A11 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of refund an and
(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
3 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that while he was working as Sub-Postmaster Postmaster in Mangalpeth SO in Bidar Division during 2018, he was issued with a notice stating that there was misappropriation of Rs.3,14,000/- in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and Time Deposit (TD) amount for period from 07.09.2017 to 23.03.2018. The applicant was directed to remit the said amount to the Post Office account, to which the applicant submitted his reply stating that he was not responsible for the same and alleged misappropriation was committed by Shri Abdul Jaleel, GDS Packer, working under him.. The applicant submi submitted a representation dated 13.12.2018 before the respondents stating that though the amount was misappropriated by Shri Abdul Jaleel, he is crediting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs.2,00,000/ as directed. The Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 11.02.2019 stating that there has been a misappropriation of further amount of Rs.185,1 misappropriation Rs.185,100/- during the period the applicant worked as Sub-Postmaster.
Sub Postmaster. Accordingly, the applicant was directed to credit the said amount in addition to the amount credited earlier. The applicant submitted a representation that Shri Abdul Jaleel was the culprit and the applicant is no where responsible for the fraud committed by him. However, the applicant further 4 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH credited edited a sum of Rs.43,000/-
Rs.43,000/ on 25.07.2019 .2019 for the loss caused by Shri Abdul bdul Jaleel. Though the applicant requested for a detailed enquiry under Rule ule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, subsequently he has withdrawn his request for the detailed inquiry. The applicant reiterated his stand stating that the fraud was committed by S Shri Abdul Jaleel but he has remitted Rs.2,43,000/- towards the loss caused by Shri Abdul Jaleel.
Jaleel The Respondent No.3 without holding any enquiry passed the final order dated 12.12.2019 to recover Rs.8,000/ Rs.8,000/- for 24 months from the pay of the applicant com commencing from December, 2019. An appeal was submitted by the applicant before the Respondent No.2 against the said order and the same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri A.R.Holla representing the applicant submitted that the applicant had no hand in the loss caused by the GDS Packer, Shri Abdul Jaleel. There is absolutely no basis for the recovery from the applicant. The applicant is not liable to pay the amount alleged to have misappropriated by the GDS Packer, Shri Abdul Jaleel. The entire amount recovered from the applicant Rs.,4,33,122/ (Rs.2,00,000 + Rs.43,000 + Rs.1,90,122) for the loss Rs.,4,33,122/-
5 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH caused is without any sanctity. The Respondent No.3 being the head of the Division, ivision, is responsible for the whole fiasco. The applicant had been held responsible and made to pay the alleged loss taking advantage of the fact that he is due to retire on superannuation on 30.06.2022 and is entitled to get his terminal benefits. The loss caused, if any, ought to have been established by holding an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after framing specific charges against the concerned officials. The penalty imposed on the applicant is arbitrary and totally unjustified. Appellate Authority has blindly upheld held the order of the Disciplinary Authority without application of mind.
4. Learned Counsel Shri S.Sugumaran representing the respondents submitted that the applicant had worked as Sub Sub-Post Master, Mangalpeth SO for the period from 03.08.2017 to 05.09.2 05.09.2018, during this period Shri Abdul Jaleel, GDS Packer has accepted the deposit amount from customers of Mangalpeth Post Office, who visited the office for opening of accounts and to deposit. After receiving the amount from the customers, he has issued pa passbook available in the stock of Mangalpeth Post Office. He has given 6 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH fictitious account number, impressed with the office date, stamp/seal and misappropriated an amount of Rs.9,86,500/ Rs.9,86,500/- for his personal use for the period from 11.06.2013 to 03.04.2018. Due to which, the department has sustained huge loss of Rs.11,78,919/ Rs.11,78,919/- (Amount of misappropriat misappropriation Rs.9,86,500/- plus penal interest Rs.1,92,419/ Rs.1,92,419/-).
).
Learned Counsel submitted that Postmaster is responsible for maintenance of Passbook, Stock register an and debit entries to the stock register as and when issued. Postmaster Postmaster/Sub-Postmaster is the custodian of stamp/seal and its proper use. The key of the office and all stock of the office should be in the personal custody of the Sub Sub-
Postmaster. Due to the the negligence of the applicant, Shri Abdul Jaleel, Dak Sevak misappropriated misappropriated huge amount of Rs.3,85,1 Rs.3,85,100/- during the period in which the applicant had worked as Sub Sub-Postmaster. The amount including the penal interest works out to Rs.4,35,000/ Rs.4,35,000/-. The applicant licant has credited Rs.2,43,000/-
Rs.2,43,000/ voluntarily towards contributory negligence. Rs.1,92,000/-
Rs.1,92,000/ was still outstanding to be recovered from the applicant, a penalty imposing recovery of Rs.8,000/ Rs.8,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant for 24 months was oordered by Respondent No.3. The same has been rightly confirmed by the 7 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Appellate Authority. Thus, learned Counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the m material on record.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether hether the penalty order impugned (Annexure A11) by the Disciplinary Authority ordering recover recovery of Rs.8000/- per month from the pay of the applicant commencing from the pay of December, 2012 for a period of 24 months months, is justifiable?
2) Whether hether the impugned order at Annexure A13 passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of the Disciplinary authority is justifiable?
Since the aforesaid points are inter-linked, inter linked, the same are considered together. The charges levelled against the applicant are as under:
"Article "Article-I That the said Shri Anneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM at Mangalpeth SO a/w Bidar HO during the period from 02.08.2017 to 04.09.2018, 1 year TD account bearing no.3420548460 was opened on 11.09.2017 in the name of Smt Malan Bee w/o Sharfuddin for an amo amount of Rs.60,000 at 8 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Mangalpeth SO and the said amount was not accounted for into post office accounts on the same day or subsequent days as per the records.
It is therefore alleged that the said Sri Anneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM Mangalpeth SO dduring the aforesaid period has not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule No.6 of POSB Vol-I Vol I & Rule no.
no.-21 of Postal Volume -VI, part which facilitated non-credit part-I credit of the deposit amount of Rs.60,000 (Sixty thousand only) being the deposit amount of 1 year ear TD account bearing no.3420548460 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of Rul 3(1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Rul-3(1)(ii) Article Article-II That the said Shri Aneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM at Mangalpeth SO a/w Bidar HO during the period from 02.08.2017 to 04.09.2018, 1 year TD account bearing no.3420539253 was opened on 07.09.2017 in the name of Smt Champavathi w/o Hanumanth for an amo amount of Rs.40,000 at Mangalpeth SO and the said amount was not accounted for into post office accounts on the same day or subsequent days as per the records.
It is therefore alleged that the said Sri Anneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM Mangalpeth S SO during the 9 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH aforesaid period has not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule No.-6 No. of POSB Vol-II & Rule no no-21 of Postal Volume-VI, part which facilitated non-credit part-I credit of the deposit amount of Rs.40,000 (Forty thousand only) being the deposit amount of 1 year TD account bearing no.3420539253 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Rule-3(1)(ii) Article Article-III That the said Shri Anneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM at Mangalpeth SO a/w Bidar HO during the period from SPM 02.08.2017 to 04.09.2018, 1 year TD account bearing no.3245598782 was opened on 06.12.2017 in the name of Smt Parveen Begum w/o w/ Mohd Naser Khan for an amount of Rs.30,000 at Magalpeth SO and the said amount was not accounted for into post office accounts on the same day or subsequent days as per the records.
It is therefore alleged that the said Sri Anneppa Sherikar, while working working as SPM Mangalpeth SO during the aforesaid period has not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule No.-6 No. of POSB Vol-II & Rule no no-21 of Postal Volume-VI, part which facilitated non-credit part-I credit of the deposit amount of Rs.30,000 (Thirty thousand only) being the deposit amount of 1 Rs.30,000 year TD account bearing no.3245598782 and thereby failed to 10 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH maintain devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Rule-3(1)(ii) Article IV That the said Shri Anneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM at Mangalpeth SO a/w Bidar HO during the period from 02.08.2017 to 04.09.2018, 1 year TD account bearing no.3351254430 was opened on 03.04.2018 in the name of Smt Selva Rani w/o Mohandass for an amount of Rs.80,000 at Mangalpeth SO and the said amount was not accounted for into post office accounts on the same day or subsequent days as per the records.
It is therefore alleged that the said Sri Anneppa Sherikar, while working as SPM Mangalpeth SO during the aforesaid period has not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule No-6 No of POSB Vol-11 & Rule no no-21 of Postal Volume-VI, part which facilitated non-credit part-I credit of the deposit amount of Rs.80,000 (Eighty thousand only) being the deposit amount of 1 year TD account bearing no.335125 no.3351254430 and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
Rule-3
7. The Disciplinary Authority has observed that the request of the charged official for conducting detailed detailed inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) 11 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH was agreed by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was communicated to Charged official vide letter dated 10.10.2019. In response to the said letter, the charged official has submitted another representation dated 22.10.2019 22.10.2019 stating that he has decided to withdraw his request made to conduct the enquiry under Rule 16(1)(b). It is further observed that the applicant did not submit his version on the charges levelled against him, he was given one more chance to submit his version on the charges levelled against him, for which he submitted that the entire fraud is said to have been committed by Shri Abdul Jaleel. Having considered the amount of Rs.
Rs.2,00,000/- deposited on 10.12.2018 and Rs.43,000/-
Rs.43,000/ on 25.07.2019 by the aapplicant and the claims in respect of four accounts for Rs.2,10,000/ Rs.2,10,000/- being settled and paid to the concerned depositors, the loss caused to the department due to the negligence of the charged official being still not adjusted, it was ordered to recover Rs.8000/- per month for a period of 24 months from the salary of the applicant commencing from the pay of December, 2019.. The same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. From the pleadings, it is evident that the respondents have accepted the fraud raud committed by Shri Abdul Jaleel to the extent of Rs.9,86,500/- and the liability is fixed on the applicant to the extent of Rs.4,35,000 12 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (Rs.3,85,100/ + penal interest Rs.49,900/ (Rs.3,85,100/- Rs.49,900/-) towards his contributory negligence.
8. Contributory negligence ordinarily arily 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 likelihoodd 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 Karnat Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Vijayalaxmi and Others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 4845 (FB), the Hon'ble High Court has held thus:
"NEGLIGENCE NEGLIGENCE
11. Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind 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 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 13 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH properly connotes the complex concept of duty 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? observe 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 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 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 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 over-apprehension and from 14 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH over confidence. A reasonable man does not mean a paragon of over-confidence.
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 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 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 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 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.
15 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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 de 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 prin 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 m may plead as a way of avoiding liability that the injured person by his negligence contributed to 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 16 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH form in which the danger manifested itself should actually have occurred to his mind. It is sufficient if it is a da 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 tthe 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 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 17 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH just and equitable having regard to the plaintiff's share in the responsibility for f the damage."
9. In the circumstances, even ven assuming that there was some negligence on the part of the applicant in not discharging the duties as required under the POSB Manual Volume Volume-I, the appropriate action would be to impose the penalty coming wi within the ambit of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but fixing the responsibility and recovering the amount from the applicant during the period of working as SPM without ascertaining the actual proportion of negligence contributed by the applicant is unscientific unscientific and irrational. There cannot be any hard and fast rule or mathematical precision for fixing responsibilities of contributory negligence on the SPM to make good the loss suffered by the department owing to fraud committed by the main offender, S Shri Abdul Jaleel, but such assessment should be based on some tangible material evidence.
10. Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 prescribed procedure for imposing minor penalties:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of sub sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties imposing 18 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after 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;
may
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub 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;
(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 Disciplin Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and
(e) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour."
19 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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 punishment under the said Rule should be in proportionate to the gravity of charges imputed. If the fraud is committed by one main offender and the loss is not fully recovered, contributory share or apportionment made on the applicant based on the period of their work as SPM is dictatorial. The factum of contributor 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.
11. Rules 106 and 107 of P&T Manual Volume 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 breach caused the loss.
20 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
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 oon 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."
12. It is beneficial to refer to the Instructions dated 20.12.202 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 ssame reads thus:
"In this context, a need has been felt to sensitize the "In 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 21 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH identified as subsidiary offender, but it is only to emphasize that in cases where the contributory negligence cannot be explicitly attributed to a particular offender or pecuniary liability cannot attributed 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 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-
P&T No. 114/176/78 114/176/78- Disc.II dated 13.02.1981 Gol No.12(b) below Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 may also be referred refe to."
13. The quasi-judicial 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. 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 off offender, 22 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH unless nless the negligence on the part of the charged official is established. Disciplinary isciplinary Authority has merely given a finding that the negligence on the part of the Charged Charge official cial has facilitated GDS Packer Packer- main offender to deceive the depositor's money. This alleged fraud was committed by the GDS Packer, Shri Abdul Jaleel from 11.06.2013 to 03.04.2018 .2018 and Rs.1,14,800/- has been recovered from the said main offender. Balance amount is distributed amongst the other SPMs worked during the period of o fraud. In our considered view, penalty of recovery of the whole amount assessed towards loss for the particular period attributing pecuniary liability sans holding any enquiry is not appropriate and the same requires reconsideration. The Disciplinary Authority thority as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded in a narrow direction in fixing the pecuniary liability sans establishing the misconduct/contributory negligence on the part of the applicant, which is not in conformity with law.
14. For the reasons sons aforesaid, the impugned orders are not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders at Annexure A11 dated 12.12.2019 and Annexure-A1 A13 dated 09.03.2020 issued by the Respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively and the matter is restored to 23 OA 262/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the file of the Disciplinary Authority, Respondent No. 3, to reconsider the matter er in accordance with law keeping the observations made hereinabove.
15. The Disciplinary Authority shall conduct enquiry in accordance with law in pursuant to the charge mem memo and statement of imputation of charges issued against the applicant. Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner.
16. The OA stands disposed of in terms of the above. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.