Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
S Sobhanakumari vs Post Kerala Circle on 22 November, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/701/2022
Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S. Sobhanakumari, Aged 61, D/o P. Velukutty
Sub Postmaster (Retired), Aryanad
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 542
Residing at Rohini, Koduppuram
Pazhakutty P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 561
Ph.No. 8301040491, Email: [email protected]
- Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr.Vishnu S.Chempazhanthiyil]
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 036.
2. The Senior Superintendent
RMS TV Division & Adhoc Disciplinary Authority
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 036.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ) &
Revisional Authority, Office of the CPMG
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
4. The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
O.A 701/2022 2
5. Union of India, represented by the Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.Sheela Devi I., SPC]
The application having been heard on 18.10.2023, the Tribunal
on 22.11.2023 passed the following:
ORDER
Applicant is a Postal Assistant. During the period between 30.05.2008 to 19.05.2011 she was working as Sub Postmaster in Karakulam Post Office under the 1 st respondent. At that time one Smt.V.R.Ajitha was the Postal Assistant. There were allegations that, during 2011 the said Ajitha had misappropriated money by not crediting the remittances made by RD agents. On detecting the misappropriation of large amount, the said Ajitha was initially suspended from service and later disciplinary proceedings ended in her dismissal. Being the Sub Postmaster, proceeding was initiated against the applicant also, under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA)Rules, alleging misconduct, violating Rule 106 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume-I Second edition read with Rule 31(2)(i)(b) and 31(2)(ii)ibid O.A 701/2022 3 and Rule 4(1), Rule 6 and Rule 103 of the FHB Manual Volume-I. The applicant faced three allegations:
(1) During 30.05.2008 to 19.05.2011 while working as Sub Postmaster, Karakulam, on 18.09.2008 she failed to bring into Post Office accounts an amount of Rs.10,000/-
accepted from Smt.Najiminsa Beevi, MPKBY agent towards 24 deposits in the RD accounts;
(2) During the above said period, on 26.09.2008 she failed to bring into Post Office accounts an amount of Rs.9,500/- plus defaulted interest of Rs.8/- accepted from Smt.J.Sreekumari, MPKBY agent, towards 39 deposits in RD accounts;
(3) During the above said period she failed to maintain and keep in her personal custody RD Long Book (RD Journal) of Karakulam SO as provided under Rule 95A of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume-I covering period from 06/2008 to 11.12.2008.
2. It is the common case that the proceedings on the above O.A 701/2022 4 stated charges culminated with Annexure-A1 order of the 2 nd respondent imposing a punishment for reducing her pay by one stage from Rs.62,200/- to Rs.60,400/- for a period of two years with effect from 01.03.2019. It was further directed that the applicant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and that on the expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay.
3. It is evident that the applicant did not prefer any appeal against the said punishment. However, the 4 th respondent decided to initiate suo motu revision against Annexure-A1 proceedings. Thus Annexure-A2 notice was issued to her as provided under Rule 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules calling upon her to make representation, within 15 days of receipt of the memorandum, failing which, it was stated that it will suo motu be reviewed. The proposed revision was based on the assumption that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against her. Thus the 4 th respondent wanted to revise and enhance the punishment.
4. The applicant gave Annexure-A3 reply to the show cause O.A 701/2022 5 notice contending that such a revision is not maintainable under Rule 29 para (i)(v) and para (vi) as it is time barred. But the respondents did not take any decision on Annexure-A2. Meanwhile, the applicant retired from service from the Aryanad SO on 30.06.2021, on attaining the age of superannuation.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that even though she was granted an amount of Rs.72,732/- towards CGEGIS on 21.02.2022 and Rs.8,44,800/- on 22.12.2021 towards leave salary, despite the fact that those were belated payments, she was not paid interest. She is entitled to get 8% interest for the same. Even though she was paid provisional pension, her full pension was not sanctioned. Even though she made complaints, that have not been considered. Ultimately, by Annexures-A7 and A8 she has been informed that the decision on the revision of punishment is pending with the Directorate so that her prayer for granting other pensionary benefits cannot be allowed.
6. According to the applicant, Rule 14 proceedings initiated against her has been culminated by imposition of penalty through Annexure-A1. Revision under Rule 29 should have been initiated O.A 701/2022 6 within a period of six months from the date of order imposing punishment. Annexure-A2 was issued after the said period of six months so that such a proceeding is void ab-initio. Even assuming that a show cause notice under Annexure-A2 is valid, that does not give rise to a proposition that departmental proceedings is pending on the date of retirement. Therefore, there is no justification in denying her full pension and commuted value of pension. Therefore, she prays for quashing Annexures-A7 and A8, to direct the respondents to release her all pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 8% for the amounts paid towards CGEGIS and leave salary.
7. Respondents have filed reply contending that during the pendency of the O.A., through Annexure-R1, directions have been issued by the competent authority for releasing all pending benefits due to the applicant. This has already been recorded by the Tribunal. In fact, in the light of Annexure-R1 and subsequent release of full pension and other retiral benefits, the O.A. has become virtually infructuous.
8. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri.Vishnu O.A 701/2022 7 S.Chempazhanthiyil and Smt.Sheela Devi I, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is inordinate delay in releasing the pensionary benefits which is attributable to the lapses on the part of the respondents and hence the applicant is entitled to get interest for the delayed payment, at the rate of 8% per annum. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and another [(2008) 3 SCC 44], Meenakshi K. v. Cherthala Municipality and others [2010 (3) KHC 918] and Krishnan Namboothiri T.V. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 (1) KHC 143].
10. Smt.Sheela Devi has strongly opposed grant of amounts towards interest. According to her, the applicant has already been granted provisional pension, which in effect is full pension, besides amounts towards CGEGSS and leave salary of Rs.8,44,800/-. Releasing of commuted value of pension and other benefits was delayed since the 1st respondent was awaiting clarification from higher authorities in New Delhi. Immediately after receipt of clearance, amounts have been O.A 701/2022 8 released. According to the learned Standing Counsel, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her after noticing that a huge fraud amounting to more than Rs.17 lakhs was committed in Karakulam Post Office during the spell of service of the applicant. Postal Assistant, Ajitha has already been dismissed from service and Rule 14 proceeding was initiated against the applicant. But the penalty imposed on the applicant was meager and that was how suo motu revision was contemplated under Rule 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. But finding that it was bit delayed, further proceedings could not be initiated against the applicant. According to the learned Standing Counsel, there was proposal for adjusting loss of Rs.6,16,438/- from the applicant. But ultimately that also could not be proceeded against.
11. Annexure-A9 is the order granting the applicant full pension which indicates that the provisional pension was as good as full pension. Her commuted value of pension and gratuity were also released simultaneously on 24.01.2023, immediately after getting directions from the Postal Directorate that Rule 29 proceedings is not maintainable being time barred. So, according to the learned Standing O.A 701/2022 9 Counsel, there is no delay warranting payment of interest.
12. Documents produced by the parties indicate that the applicant did not have a blemishless service. During the period of her tenure in Karakulam Post Office a fraud was detected amounting to more than Rs.17 lakhs in which the applicant was proceeded against as the subsidiary offender, which ended in imposition of penalty, as evidenced by Annexure-A1. The 4th respondent felt that the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the gravity of the charge, wanted to revise the same suo motu. But by the time Annexure-A2 notice was issued, the period of six months had expired, so that the respondents could not proceed with the revision. Such an objection raised by the applicant was found formidable. There was some confusion at the level of the 4 th respondent and it is seen that the matter was referred to Member (Personnel) at the Department of Posts.
13. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, the proceeding initiated under Annexure-A2 is a nullity as barred by limitation. Any how, that took some time for the O.A 701/2022 10 respondents to realise fallowness and finalise the proceedings and release retiral benefits of the applicant. There is about 1½ years' delay in releasing commuted value of pension and gratuity.
14. In my assessment, such a delay cannot be branded as unreasonable. There was clear supervisory lapses on her part; finding and punishment imposed on her are beyond challenge. Having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent had taken up the matter with the Department of Posts besides the fact that the applicant was instrumental in causing huge loss to the department, this is not a fit case to mulct the department to bear the burden of interest as well.
15. There is also no Rule that every delay should be mulcted with payment of interest. Matters have to be analysed case by case basis. In S.K.Dua, quoted supra, there was a delay of four years due to the fact that a person in the category of Engineer-in-Chief with unblemished record of service was persecuted at the final leg of his service. After four years he was exonerated in the departmental proceedings. In Meenakshi, quoted supra, Cherthala Municipality, the competent authority, delayed payment of the DCRG and arrears of O.A 701/2022 11 Dearness Allowance of a Sanitary Worker pleading dearth of funds, which was not accepted by the High Court. In Krishnan Namboothiri, untenable contentions were raised by Travancore Devaswom Board for delaying payment of pensionary benefits.
16. In my view, the facts are different. Here, the applicant was found guilty and was instrumental in causing huge loss to the department. The officers at circle level were under the impression that Rule 29 proceedings could be initiated even after six months. Immediately after getting clarification, the amounts were released. In my view, the applicant is not entitled to get interest.
To sum up, as the entire retirement benefits have been released, nothing survives for consideration. In the circumstances of the case, the prayer for grant of interest on delayed payment is declined. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dated, this the 22nd November, 2023) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds O.A 701/2022 12 List of Annexures Annexure Al: True copy of the proceedings No.ADA/02/2018 dated 14.2.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2: True copy of Memo No.ST/308-2/2019 dated 22.8.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A3: True copy of the reply dated 10.9.2019 submitted by the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A4: True copy of the Memo No.B/1360 dated 30.6.2021 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A5: True copy of the communication No.CCC/DOP PW/E/ 2021/27643 dated 9.8.2021 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A6: True copy of the complaint submitted online on 27.4.2022.
Annexure A7: True copy of the Order No.ST/308-2/2019/Review/ Vol.ll dated 25.5.2022 issued by the Office of the 4th respondent.
Annexure A8: True copy of the Order No.ST/308-2/219/Review/ Vol.II dated 5.9.2022 issued by the Office of the 4th respondent.
Annexure A9: True copy of the communication No.POSTAL/2023/ KE/27158/6873 dated 24.01.2023 issued by the ACAO/Sr.AO/Accounts Officer, Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.
O.A 701/2022 13Annexure A10: True copy of the commuted value payment authority issued by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle dated 03.02.2023.
Annexure A11: True copy of the intimation of gratuity issued by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle dated 03.02.2023.
Annexure-RI: True copy of the letter No.ST/308-2/2019/Review/ Vol.II dated 17.01.2023 issued from the office of the 4th respondent to the 1st respondent.
Annexure-R2: True copy of the letter No.C-11011/ 01/2001-VP dated 30.07.2019 issued by the Director (VP), Director of Postal Services, VP Division, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi to All Heads of Circles.
Annexure-R3: True copy of the relevant pages containing Rule 29 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
Annexure-R4: True copy of the order No. C-17015/ 28/2021-VP dated 20.09.2022 issued by the Director (VP), Director of Postal Services, VP Division, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi to the 4th respondent.
******