Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Ramakanta Mishra vs D/O Post on 27 April, 2023
ree OA We BAQVHOO F200 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH Qriginal Application No. 260/00017 (2020 Reseryed or: LiO2 S025 Pronounced ¢ CORAS:
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (Admin.) Ramakanta Mishra (deceased) represented through Amusuya Dash, aged about 55 years, Widow af Ramakanta Mishra, permanent resident of At Alakapuri 3° Lane, Sack of Engineering Se 'hook, PO- Engineering School, City Berhampur, Dist- Ganjam, Odisha-7ooo1o.
ow plicant For the Applicant: Mr. T.Rath, Counsel
-Yersus-
1. Union of India represented through 0.0. Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Pelhi- 110001.
4 The Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, At-
PMG Square, Bhubaneswar GPQ, Bhubaneswar- PSLOO8, woe RESpoRTeHnts > For the Respondents: Mr. 8.8. Nayak, Counsel 2 Ci Ne ZOOM F020 OR DPD ER Pramod Kumar Das, Member{Ah:
This OA was originally fled by the employee concern ec fRamakanta Mishra} seeking to quash Annexure-A/1 dated 20.11.2071 8 fcharge sheet}, Af? dated LO07.203 8 { arder of punishment of recovery) t ayy é and Af13 dated 17/18.12.2019 {Appellate Authority order} and to direct the respondents te refund the amount recovered fram his salary. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2020 had directed for no recovery for the month of January in pursuance fo the impugned punishment arder. 'The Interim order was further extended an subsequent dates.
2, uring pendency of the OA, the original applicant, Ramakanta Mishra expired on 18.09.2021 {hereinafter referred to as applicant], cansequently his wife, viz. Anusuya Dash, was substituted vide order dated 25.02.2022.
3 'The case of the applicant in brief is that while working as superintendent of post offices, Rayagac ada Division, he was served with ¢ minor penalty charge sheet, proposing action under Rule 16 af CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide memo dated 2Q.11.2018 fA/1) on the allegation that during annual inspections of Bhawanipatna HO on S012. 2014, 07.07.2015 & 30112015, he failed to carry out checks whether ia credit/debit scrolls have been received and posted in the respective being checked daily by disbursing officer, He also failed to take action in case of discrepancy and investigate ander istimation to RU/CD besides ensuring = submission af reconciliation statement of DA (P} as required under question no. 34 fh}, Site} and 21fa) of Inspection questionnaire of Head Post Office. Por which, a fraud was committed and the department sustained 4 huge loss of Rs. 55 lakhs. Applicant asked for some documents, Spas, Kalahandi Division, supplied any the relevant documents, Applicant submitted 4 detailed defence representation on 22.03.2019 (A/6)}, The Disciplinary Authority, taking a view that the fraud has been committed by another culprit ard the applicant has contributory lapses, vide its arder dated 10.07 2019 (4/7) impased punishment af recovery of Rs, 5,000,000 /- in Instalments from his pay. Applicant submitted his appeal, which has been rejected vide order dated 17 {18.12.2019 [A/13}.
4, Respondents have led counter inter alia stating that due to emission and commission of the applicant in dis charging his duties as per Inspection questionnaire, # huge pecuniary loss of Rs. S5,00, INH} fs was By sustained by the department due fo the fraud committed by ure 4 OA Ne) P2820 Pastmaster, Bhawanipatna HO. The applicant was given reasonable apportunity ts defend himself by supplying all the relevant documents, however, after assessing his contr {hutory lapses vis a vis the charges and che defence representation, the CPMG, Odisha Circle, took a lenient view and fnyposed the penalty af recovery af Rs. 5,00,000 yf- only. It is submitted that had the spplicant taken pronmypt action, such a huge pecuniary loss tc the department could have been avoided, It is harther submitted that applicant has | Filed to discharge his duties as mentioned cy Pastal Manual Vol. VIL Rule 239 of Posts and Telegraph Manual Vol. WL Hence, they have prayed for dismissal af this QA.
5. Applicant has fled rejoinder cuntradicting the averments made by the respondents. It Is submitted by the Ld. Caunsel for the applicant that although the applicant has raised many points in his defence statement but the respondents Instead af making any inquiry, imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs, 5,00,000/-. His further contention is that provisions under para 31(b}, 3ifc) and 31(d) of Inspection Questionnaire of Head Post Office prescribes rhe verifications of Treasury Pass Book af Head Post Office during inspection and the 'freasury Pass Book is maintained at HO under Rule 309 af Central Treasury Rules, Voll and the WR transactions entered therein either for receipts ar for payments need to he brought directly te the account of the P&T accounts in the books standing at the concerned bank and fer that the concerned branch af bank is required to furnish the c: ally deblt and credit scralls to the HPO as a daily statement of transactlots. The applicant with the assistance of Inspectorial Staffs of the division had undertaken the prescribe checks of Bhawanipatna HQ Treasury Sassbaok but could not find commission of ary Irregularities by ori Kahiral Harlian, Fostmusster, Rhawanipatna HO. [t is further submitted that since the cheques were encashed through bank directly, where using the treasury passbook did not arise, the debit scralis in respect of thase cheques need not require to be received: at Rhawanipatna HO and the said fact has been admitted by the respondents in Ammexure-A/3 that "no serall re eceiyed at Bhawanipatna HO against defrauded cheques" and that "Cheques have not been cleared through post office, hence the Treasury Pass book is not relevant". Hence, claiming that the applicant has been Belsely imyplicated and the charges are baseless, La. Counsel for the applicant has praye ed for the relief as claimed in this OA.
& GA No SGOT ne Sea fm, tent Lr met 7 6 Heard Ld. Counsel for the sides and went through the materials placed an records.
x The claim of the respondents is that charge sheetunder Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was seaned to the applicant for his dereliction ae af duty vide charge HSNO dared 201 1.2018. As the applicant hac never asked for regular Inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority taking note of the huge fraud committed by the Posimaster, Bhawanipatna HO vis a vis the nesligence of the applicant and the d efence representation submitted by him, Impased the punishment ins well reasoned order, which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority.
8 There Is no iota of doubt that the ypplicant has been charges sheeted under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, F465 on the allegation that due to his lapses in discharging ie duties, the Postmaster, Bhawanipatna HO defraud the department to the fune of Rs, 55,00,000/- and the applicant had not misappropriated the amount himeelf or was directly invalved I che fraud, Further, thas been claimed by the applicant that he had seught « but he was net supplica various documents fo make an € ffective defenc with all the documents. Ld. Counsel for the applicant by Hing OM dated
-
25 08.1981 an the subject of supply af copies of the documents to the DA No Devin:
delmquent afficial has submitted that the non supply of documents has seriously prejudiced the interest of the applicant. This Tribunal is well aware of the judicial pronouncement that even ia the case of 4 minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the de Hinguent erpployes to Rave his say ar to Mle his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, the cha res are factual and if they are denied by delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be cafled for and this is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural fustice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with [(O.K Bhardwaj Vs. UOE & Ors aOGe SCC(L&S) 188]. This Tribunal is also reminded of one such decision af this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Uday Shankar Das Vs. UOI in OA 4356/2001, who was Imposed with the minor penalty without inquiry, and by applying the decision of Hon'ble Apex in the case af O.K. Bhardwaj {supra} this Tribunal quashed the punishment vide order dated 203.2003, which was aiso upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has 4S As the abegation against the applicant was factual, which was also denied pres ay the applicant in his defence representation before the Disciplinary Authority, as per the law the Disciplinary Authority ought te have called for a regular Inquiry instead of Imposing the punishment without inquiry.
KS yao pe ¥ 2B 2 Last but not the least, Ld. Counsel! for the spplicant has submitted that the : ley ba wearers Samrat far deenl€ fa supervisory lapse as pointed out by the respondents cannot by iHsek be <t construed to be a contributory negligence to the conimission of fraud committed by another employee since this connection has net bean established in the impugned order and, that, ne justification has been given for proportionate share of recovery, the arder of punishment is Hable to be quashed, which he has sought by placing rellance in the decisian of this Tribunal dated 28.06.2017 In OA Loa feos, (Khageswor Mohanta Vs UQI & Ors). | have gone through the above cited decision of this Tribunal and do net find any fustiGiable reason fo lefer from the view taken in the shove case as in this case also direct nexus or the contribution of the applicant for the fraud committed by another employee concerned has not been established nor as to how the proportionate amount sought to be recovered has been established in the impugned order. Thus, the logical conclusion would be that the decision ofthe respondents is in violation af the princinle of natural justice.
&, The met result of the discussion woulkl come fo the irresistible conclusion that the order of punishment being in gross wiolation af principle of natural fustice in view of the law discussed above, the proceeding In complinncs with pring cigle of natural fustice but for the reason that the Govt, employes has in the meantime died and as per the Goyt. of India decision, the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 16 is to be abated in the event of death of the employee, this Tribursal i refrained from doing so, Respondents are directed to refund the already recovered amount, if any, from the deceased employee, within a period of
60) days fram the date of receipt of a copy af this order.
TQ. 'Fhe GA is allowed leaving the parfies to hear theiy creer cOSES.
eu ec ia aid Ms "