Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Satyajit Mandal vs D/O India Post on 25 August, 2022
1 pre __ CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL a da ay ~ KOLKATA BENCH _ Dr on aarananl KOLKATA OA. 350/1710/2018 Date of order: 25.08.2022. ~ MA. 350/881/2018 | Present For the Applicant 'Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Satyajit Mandal, son of Sri Ranjit Kumar Mandal, aged about 33 yrs., working as Postal Asstt. (PA), SBCO, Tollygunge Head Post Office, Kolkata- 700 033 under 'the Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, South Kolkata Division, Kol- 700 029, residing at Royal Apartment, 857/9, P. S. Road, P.O. Purba Sinthi, Kolkata- 700 030. ssseeeeee Applicant. -versus- 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & IT, Deptt. Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata- 700 012. 3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, South Kolkata Division, 211, Sarat Bose road, Kolkata- 700 029. 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Barasat Division, Kolkata- 700 0124. S. The Postmaster, Tollygunge HO, Kolkata- 700033. eeeaeeeee Respondents. , : Mr. K. Sarkar, Counsel Ms. A. Sarkar, Counsel ORDER (Oral)
Per Ms. Bidisha Baneriee. IM:
Heard Id. Counsels for both sides.
2, This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised fist dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunal _ Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved this matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides. -
3. Aggrieved with the charge sheet dated 14.02.2018 issued by the respondent no, 3 and the order of punishment dated 31.10.2018 also issued by the respondent no. 3, the applicant moved this OA before the Tribunal to seek the following reliefs:
"i fo direct the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the purported charge sheet dated 14.02.2018, order af punishment dated 31,10.2018 & Memo issued sometimes in the month of Novernber, 2018 giving effect to the said order of punishment, as contained in Annexure "A-6" & 4-8" herein respectively;
tit} Ta direct the respondents pot te recover ary sum from the pay packet of the applicant from the month af November, 2018 onwards till te disposal af this auplicatian for giving effect ta the said order of punishment and subsequent memo for recavery; --
{ii} Todirect the respandents ta produce the entire records of the cose before this Han'ble Tribunal for effective adjudication of the issues invalved herein;
(iv) Anti to pass such further or other order or orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper." .
4. The gravamen of the indictments in the charge memo dated 142.2018 (Annexure A-6) issued by the S5PO, South Kalkata Division are the following ;
Statement of imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour against Sri Satyajit Mandal, the then PA, (SECO). Busirhat 4. O.fnaw PA, (S800), Tallygunge HO, Koikata-700033}, Sri Satyajit Mandal, while working as PA, SBCO. Basirhat HO during the periad from 13.07.2011 to 27.06.2018 feiled to ensure thot the returns of LOTS and vouchers pertaining to RD scheme were regularly received from SO {SB} branch of Sasirhat HO, contravening Rule-78{1) of SB Control pairing and internal check organization feorrected up to Ist April, 2005) and instructions communicated vide DG Posts letter No. 120- | 23/2001-88 dated 07.01.2003 and No.113-1/2002-S8 dated 05,05, 2003, Being PA, SBCO, Basirhat HO, Sri Mandal, foiled to maintain SB-85 register at SBCO, Basirhat HO during the above mentioned period in contravention af the jnstructions "communicated by DG Pasts letter No. 112-1/2002-88 dated 05.05.2008.
Being FA, SBCO, Basirhat HO, Sr} Satyajit Mandal, during the. period from 18.07.2011 to27.06.2015 failed ta receive daily returns fram head post affice pertaining to RD scheme of single and double handed SOS. By his above laxity, So Mandal has violated the instructions of SB order No.2/2008 communicated vide Dte's letter No.116-09/2007-SR° dated 04,02. 2008. .-
Being PA, SBCO, Basirhat HO, Sri Mandal, during the period from 18.07.2011 to 27, 06.2015 failed to raise any abjectian for non-receipt of six monthly list balance of sub offices for agreement as envisaged in Rule-126({2} of a Past Office Savings Bank Manual, Volumo-d, sixth edition corrected up ta July, 2012, if Sei Satyajit Mandal, had performed his entrusted duties as per prescribed rules mentioned above, the &D fraud case at Bhabla SO invalving Auge amount could have been detected earlier and the loss sustained to the Department could have been minimized.
Thus Sri Satyajit Mandal has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant as required under Rule-3(2}ffii, 3(1){lli) af CCS {Conduct} Rules, 1964, , The applicant vide his letter dated 21.2.2018 (Annexure A-7} had stated as under:
i have been. directed to submit a reply within 10 days only, which is very short.
As stated in the memorandum the case is almost 5 to 6 years old and { could not remember the nature of works performed in detail after such a long time.
This is to pray to your good self that kindly. allow me another 18 days more time to prepare the representation and submission of the sarne.
(would also apped! to yaur good self fo kindly provide me the following documents which relates to my working period under Basirhat HO to enable me to prepare the representation within due time:
i.Copy of SBCO arder book from 18/07/2011 to 27/06/2015.
2. Copy of order af allocation of RD work of Bhabla SO.
3.Copy af DG Past Jetter no.110-23/2001-58 dated 07-01-2003, letter AGL13-1/2002 $B dated 05/05/2004 and SB Order 02/2008:
Returns Received Register of SBCO.
5.Copy of MPR front 07/2011 to 07/2015.
6.Copy of inspection Reports of Sr.AQ ICQ(SB), Kolkata Region for the years 201010 2615 to find aut work allocation and works: performed during such period. ~ oplicant was informed vide letter dated 27.7.18 (Annexure ions, fh isos dative res PRR eteetd SOCURIS NS fem TROP sO) y te 8 . i supplied, Rovwark oj] Notaveiabic, of ordar ot nowaiian of nadia SCE Costas af GO Past LP ot HD Seurder O22.
ved resist Shot ayn as:
APS fran GEOOT to G3 Pholscopy af mally , SBCO Basirhar HOH fAIo softer AEs 8509 * us Hor thes niath » DRAOTT US rex 4 ha NERY Ut Lat SPA Oe oan {SRO Ta RAN Oba SATS aed Aigie not aval yok F. On. 14.818 vide 'his reply the applicant claimed thé "charees with factual details. | | | 8. By and order dated 31.10.18 the $$°0 while reproducing his defence letter dated 14.8.18 observed and imposed punishment as under:
i have carefully gone through the representation of Sri Satyajit Mandal: The. main arguments largely rests on the following points.
1. He was not aware of the MOW.
2. He was notimparted proper training on induction and 3, There was a lack of adequate infrastructure to carry out Als allotted duties, To ail the above points I may avert that his basic denial of knowledge. of MDW can not be accepled as he was.working in the same post-since his date of joining Le. an-18.07.2011.
His intimate knowledge of MDW can be safely inferred fram his continuous working period of about 4 years in the same post.
in- respect of point no-3, itis to mentian that his contention about absence of working infrastructure is nat tenable sin¢e during this long period he never highlighted the fact to the appropriate authority.
His overall failure to exercise adequate caution and commitment of discharge of duties can therefore be attributed to bis willful & deliberate negligence which is a contributory Jactor in sustaining @ huge departmental loss.
16. n we discussion, it is-clear that Sri Mondal failed to observe the procedure as laid down in the respective Rules cited in the charge sheet far SBCO staff and thereby failed fo maintain devotion to duty and acted ina manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant es required under Rule-3{2) {ii}, 3(2} {fi} of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, the charge braught against Sri Satyeyit Mandal is proved.
Now, therefore, considering the length of service he rendered to the Bepertrnent as wef as partial adjustment of departmental loss sustained in the instant case, barn inclined ta take a Jenient view and pass the folio wing order to meet the ends of justice.
ORDER I Sri Ranjit Halder, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, South Kolkata Division., Kolkete 700029 in exercise of powers conferred upon me vide Rule 12 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do hereby impose the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,25,000.00 (Rupees Gne Lakhs twenty five thousand) only from the pay of Sri Satyajit Mandal, PA, SBCO, Tollyqunge HO Kolkata- 700033 in 25 {Twenty five} equal monthly instaliments of Rs S,000.00 {Rupees Five thousand only) each wef the pay af November 2018." .
No appeal seems to be preferred against the said punishment order.
The applicant has relied upon the instructions dated 49.11.21 from the Director General of Postal Services which is extracted to the extant it is relevant and germane to the lis:
"ous Otention is drawn ta Rule 106, 107 and 111 of Postal Manali Voturne-i, which inter alia prescribes that in case af proceedings of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence or breach of arder by Government Servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when established that Government Servant was responsible for particular act, for omission or breach af ridesforders/instructions and that such.
negligence famission/breach an resulted in losses, The aforesaid Rules also specify that the competent authority should correctly assess the coantributery negligence in a realistic manner on the part of the officers and the extenuating circumstance in which the duties were performed by the officer, alsa requires to he given due weightage.
3 in this context, a need has been felt to sensitize the Disciplinary Authorities about the adverse outcome of such faulty identification of subsidiary offenders and making recovery from ther for oo lapse ar the lapses, which are not relatable ta the commission of @ particular fraud i should be Clearly understood by the all Obciotinary Authorities that an official can be punished far good and sufficient reasans, but the penalty of recovery can be owerded only if the lapses on their part have led to the commission of fraud or misappropriation. This dees not mean that for the alleged lapses, an official connat be identified as subsidiary offender, but it is aniy to emphasize thet in cases where the contributory negligence cannot be explicitly attributed to a particular offender er.
pecuniary fiability cannot be worked out, instead-of the penalty of recavery, any other statutory penalty shauld be imposed. Wherever it is proposed to award penalty of -
recovery, the charge sheet should be drafted carefully ta.clearly indicate Ure loss caused due to lapses an the part of the official cancerned, The instructions contained in this.office communication no. DG P&T No. LIS/176/78- Disc # dtd. 12.02.1981 Gal No. 12(b) below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1985 may also be referred to."
§ ee sled upon the following:
ee 'Order passed in OA, 322/21 dated 22.3.21 where this Tribunal has observed as under:
"10. The discernible facts are as under:
{i) The procedure for imposing the minor penalty under Rule I of the CCSICCA) Rules lay down the following: fextracted with emphasis for clarity}
16. Procedure fer imposing minor penalties {2} Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 19 no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to. flv) of rule 11 shall be made except after. .-
_. fa} inferming the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take oction-against him and of the imputations. of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it. is. propased to be taken, and-giving him _ Feasonable opportunity of making such representation -as he may-wish to
- make against the proposal: ae fb} holding an inquiry in the manner Jai down in-sub-rules {3} te (24) of rule 14; in every case in which the disciplinary duthority is of the opinion that such inguiry is necessary; -- : , veces (ooo) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a}-and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause © coe [bh inte consideration; Aes se Bia iene oe consulting the Cormmission where such. consultation is.
ity: The Disciplinary: Authority shall forward or. cause to be forwarded-a cop of the advice of the Commission to. the Government _ Servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written _ representation-ar submission on the advice of the 'Commission, to the
- Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and 7 necess (é) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct ar misbehavior. XK XXNXXNK (2 SOOOWK {2} The record of the proceedings in such cases shall inctude- be _ fi) @.copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal ta take action against' him: , ee :
> fifhe copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him ;
fii) his representation, if any.
(iv) the evidence produred during the inguiry:
{v) the advice of the Commission, if any;
-(vi) representation, if any, of the Gavernment servant on the advice of the: Commission; :
{vil} the findings on each imputation af misconduct or misbehavior, and
(vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefar.
The provision makes it imperative for the Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind an facts and decide whether an inquiry is necessary in the matter. .
Ti. Where the charges are factual and are denied, us in the present case, in On. Bhardwaj os Vs. Union of india, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, Hon'ble Apex Court hes succinctly held . as under:
"3 While we agree with the first propasition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition, Even. in the case of a minor penaity an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should oiso he called for, This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with,"
iz. The Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata in the matter of Uday Chand Majumder and Ors vs, Union of indio-and Ors, in WPCT No: 112 & 113 of 2019 has affirrned the view of this Tribunal in QA No. OA Na 385 of 2017 and OA, No 350 of 2016 dated 09.05 2019 of quashing a minor penalty imposed without an enquiry, where charges were factual arid were denied. by applying the ratio of O.K Bhardwaj. The Hon 'ble High Court held as under:
» "28. There is, thus, no reason to interfere with the arders pussed by the Tribunal-on the original applications interfering with the orders of penalty, AXXNRXK RRNA «JOCK
31. The orders af the tribunal setting aside the penalty imposed on Uday and Prasenjit are maintained. However, the writ petitioners shall be free ta initiate regular departmental inquiry against Uday and Prasenjit by appointing enguiry afficer(s}. If a decision to that effect is token, the praceedings shall restime from the stage till after submission of response by Uday and Prasenjit to the charge-
shizets,"
13. .... having regard to the fact that the applicant had specifically denied the charges etc, the Appellate Order doted 11.01.2021 was quashed was and the matter was remanded back to Appeilate Authority to consider the matter in the light of the decisions cited, "8
12. On 20.11.2018, this Tribunal had passed the interim orde® ith regard to recovery from the salary of the applicant, the operative portion of the order reads as under:
"So far as interim prayer is concerned, applicant has prayed that respondents may be restrained from acting upon Annexure A-6 and not to make any recovery, While granting two weeks' time to Mr. 8. B. Chatterjee, ld. Counsel for the official. respondents, ta file reply/abjiection to the interim Prayer, | make it clear. that the respondents shail not effect any further recovery fram the salary of the applicant without
- the feave of this Tribunal." . _
43. No appeal has been oteferred in this matter whereas avaiable statutory and departmental remedies ought to be exhausted before approaching this forum.
14. In view of such the OAis disposed of with a liberty to the applicant to prefer an appeal against the penalty order within 2 weeks, which preferred will be considered in the light of the decisions and legal provisions supra, and disposed of . within the statutory period, - i THE such tim e the recovery shall remnain stayed,
15. OAis thus disposed of No costs, . | : oe | a (Bidisha Banerjee) _ Member {J} -
pd