Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Gnanasekaran vs M/O Communications on 12 April, 2022
1 OA 1683/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1683/2016
Dated Tuesday the 12th day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two
CORUM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.Gnanasekaran,
S/o Arunachala Nayanar,
No.1/399, VIP Nagar Nehru Salai,
Muthukalipatti PO, Via Andagalur 637 401,
Namakkal District ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s V.Vijay Shankar
Vs.
The Union of India,
Rep., by its Superintendent of Post Offices,
Salem West Division, Salem 636 005. ...Respondent
By Advocate Mr.J.Vasu
2 OA 1683/2016
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"To call for the proceedings of the respondent in its No.OA 1227/2014 dated at Salem 636005 dated 26.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,36,866/- recovered illegally from the applicant under the guise of implementation of order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nammakkal in C.C.No.19/2009 dated 15.02.2012 together with interest at 12 % per annum."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant joined the services of the respondent department as Postal Assistant on 12.06.1978. On 22.02.2008, one Ms.Nirmala took Rural Postal Like insurance policy and paid a sum of Rs.620/- towards first premium amount. On 10.03.2008, the premium amount towards the Postal Insurance Policy was forwarded to Sub Division Inspector of Post Rasipuram. Even before acceptance of the premium amount for granting policy by the Post Master General, the said Nirmala expired on 12.10.2008. The legal heirs of Nirmala filed complaint in C.C.No.19/2009 in District Consumer Forum. On 15.02.2012, the Consumer Forum directed the postal authorities to pay Rs.1 lakh to the heirs of Nirmala with interest at 9% per annum. On 31.10.2012, on the eve of the applicant's retirement, a sum of Rs.1,36,868 was deducted from the terminal benefits unilaterally from the Department. Aggrieved by the said deduction the applicant has filed OA No.550/2013 before this Tribunal. By order dated 10.06.2014 the said OA came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the applicant. By order dated 04.07.2014, the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant. Against the said order the applicant has 3 OA 1683/2016 filed OA 1227/2014 wherein this Tribunal by order dated 17.02.2016 quashed the impugned order therein and directed the respondents to make a thorough enquiry in the matter. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the applicant was directed to appear for an enquiry on 22.07.2016. On 05.08.2016, the applicant has made a representation to refund the money deposited by him which was rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 26.08.2016. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant has filed the present OA by impugning the order dated 26.08.2016. According to the applicant, as per the practice in vogue, the said premium amount of Rs.620/- paid by Ms.Nirmala against the Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1 lakh along with the relevant papers were duly forwarded to the Sub-
Divisional Inspector of Post, Rasipuram on 10.03.2008 itself. Thereafter, it is for the said Sub Divisional Inspector to verify and send the proposal to the Post Master General for approval. Because of the procedural delay, the policy could not be issued in favour of the said Nirmala. As a result, after the death of the said Nirmala her legal heirs have filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The respondent authorities have contested the matter before the District Consumer Forum and opposed the claim of the legal heirs of Nirmala. However, the District Consumer Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the department to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1 lakh jointly and severally from the opposite party Postal authorities with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till payment and also awarded the cost of litigation of Rs.2500. The Forum further directed to collect the said amount from the person who had actually committed deficiency in service. The respondents, without making any enquiry, just fixed the responsibility and liability on the shoulders of the applicant and directed the applicant to pay the entire amount on his last date 4 OA 1683/2016 of retirement, i.e., on 31.10.2012. It is contended by the applicant that without making an enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice, the respondent department has held the applicant responsible for the said deficiency. However, the applicant is innocent and he is not at fault since he has forwarded all the relevant documents along with the premium amount to the higher authorities and for the said deficiency the applicant is not solely responsible. Therefore, after the recovery of the said amount the applicant has requested to refund the same. However, the respondents, by order dated 26.08.2016 rejected his representation and his reply to the enquiry. While rejecting his request for refund of the said amount in the order dated 26.08.2016, it has been made clear by the respondent authorities that appeal has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Forum before the State Consumer Forum and the same is under process. If the appeal goes in favour of the department finally, then the recovered amount of Rs.1,36,868/- will be refunded to the applicant.
3. The respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed their detailed reply and opposed the relief prayed by the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed the deficiency in service and he is negligent. Since he has not forwarded the premium amount paid by Smt. Nirmala along with relevant documents to the authority, after the order of the District Consumer Forum, responsibility has been rightly fixed upon the applicant and amount has been recovered from the applicant. The respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant for refund of the deducted amount. Hence he has no case on merit and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5 OA 1683/2016
4. Heard both sides and gone through the OA.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicant, who came to be appointed as Postal Assistant on 12.06.1978 and superannuated on 31.10.2012, in his 37 years of service, has no single dot against his services and had rendered unblemished service. The incident took place in the year 2008 and after the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in the year 2009 in CC No.19/2009 on 15.02.2012, the respondent department has waked up and fixed the entire responsibility of the said order on the shoulders of the applicant and that too on the eve of the applicant's retirement without making any enquiry or show cause thereto. The respondents have directed the applicant to pay the entire amount as per the direction of District Consumer Forum. The fact which is to be taken into consideration is that the incident which took place in the year 2008 and the complaint filed by the customer in the year 2009 for negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the employees was well within the knowledge of the respondent authority. The respondent department has not taken any cognizance to go into the root of cause of the case and all of a sudden after the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 15.02.2012, without giving any show cause notice or without initiating any enquiry just fixed the liability upon the applicant and recovered the said amount as a penalty. The respondents by impugned order dated 26.08.2016 while disposing his representation upon direction of this Tribunal dated 17.02.2016 in OA 1227/2014 passed conditional orders which reads thus:
"In view of the above facts and reasons stated, I, E.R.Palanisamy, Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem West Division, Salem 636005, being the respondent in OA No.1227/2014, hereby consider the representation dated 05.08.2016 of the applicant Sri.A.Gnanasekaran, given in the 6 OA 1683/2016 personal hearing, to refund the recovered amount of Rs.136866/- and reject the same. The respondent department has file one appeal in State forum against the order of the District Consumer Forum and it is under process. If the consumer appeal case goes in favour of the department finally, then the recovered amount of Rs.136866 will be refunded to the applicant."
6. It is to be noted that at the time of hearing, the counsel for the respondents has placed the copy of the orders dated 31.01.2020 in FA No.60/2013 filed by the respondents before the State Consumer Forum against the order dated 15.02.2012. The said appeal is dismissed on 31.01.2020 for want of prosecution. The order in FA No.60/2013 is extracted hereunder:
"No representation for appellant. Appellant also called absent. Respondents present. During the previous hearing also there was no representation for appellant. Cost imposed towards adjournment also not paid. Therefore, written arguments on the side of appellant was closed. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to this date for appearance of appellant and for arguments or for dismissal. Sufficient opportunities given. Today also there is no representation for the appellant. Appellant is also called absent, thereby showing that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case. Therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal on file. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default. No cost."
7. The respondents have failed to appear before the court to agitate their stand hence matter was dismissed in default and further they had not taken any appropriate steps to recall the said order. For the said negligence on the part of the respondents, as well as the respondents have not followed the principles of law & without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant fixed the penalty. In view of the fact that the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution for the fault of the respondents herein, the applicant cannot be made to be suffer. The action on the part of the respondents is 7 OA 1683/2016 illegal and against the principles of natural justice needs to be quashed.
8. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the OA needs to be allowed. The impugned order dated 26.08.2016 is quashed and set aside. The sum of Rs.1,36,868 recovered from the applicant has to be refunded to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. OA is allowed. Accordingly, no order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 12.04.2022 MT