Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Krishna Pal Singh vs Post Up Circle on 19 March, 2025
Reserved on 05.03.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 19th day of March, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 436 of 1998
Krishna Pal Singh son of Sri Rama Nand Singh, Sub Post Master,
Khaga, District Fatehpur, resident of Tesahar Bujurg, P.S. Khaga,
District - Fatehpur.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Ms. Shrishti Singh, Shri S K Rai and Shri Gaurav
Gautam
Versus
1. Union of India through Superintendent of Post Office, Fatehpur
Mandal, Fatehpur.
2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Khaga, District - Fatehpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Ms. Shrishti Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. This matter was filed in the year 1998 and was decided on 08.05.1998 and the OA was found not maintainable as it does not come under the definition of service matter. Hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It further appears that the order passed by the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court through writ petition which was allowed observing that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter and the same was remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh on merits. It further appears that the OA was decided again on 18.11.2005 and again it RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page was dismissed as not maintainable. Order passed on 18.11.2005 was challenged through Writ A No. 17228 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court and the aforesaid Writ was allowed with the observation that the OA be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on merit in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforesaid judgment was passed on 19.10.2022. On receiving of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition, original records of the OA were summoned. It was reported by the Office that except the order sheets and the judgment passed in the OA all the other documents have been weeded out. The Tribunal faced with this situation directed to the parties to supply the documents for reconstruction of the case file so that the OA can be decided on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have supplied the copy of the OA, counter affidavit, along with some documents as well as rejoinder affidavit. Since the annexure to the OA have not been supplied and similarly some of the documents (annexure with the counter and rejoinder) have also not been supplied, parties were again directed to supply the same but they have filed affidavit mentioning that besides the documents supplied by then, no other documents are available with them. They further showed inability to produce any other documents. Thus, in light of the affidavit furnished by the parties, documents made available by them, records were reconstructed and the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on merits after hearing the parties.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order of recovery proceedings dated 23.12.1997 passed by respondent no.1.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate any further proceeding in pursuance of impugned order till the conclusion of the CBCID investigation as directed RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page by Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 12.12.1997 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N S Gupta 'J' iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect the order dated 23.12.1997 of CBCID as being done under order of Hon'ble Court.
iv. To issue any order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is that the applicant is challenging the recovery proceedings imposed by the order dated 23.12.1997 passed by the respondent no. 1 by which, as the applicant has contended, they had forcibly imposed a recovery of Rs. 5,52,900/- in pursuance of FIR dated 04.10.1997 in Case Crime No. 329/97 registered u/s 419, 420, 457, 468 IPC in P.S. Khaga, Fatehpur. The allegations upon the applicant were that he was involved in conspiracy of fake encashment of Kisan Vikas Patra which were made without proper identification and verification to one Sultan Ahmad. The applicant challenged the aforesaid FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Application No. 6891 of 1997 and the Hon'ble High Court referred the investigation from Local Police of Police Station Khaga District, Fatehpur to CBCID for proper investigation and also directed that the applicant shall be arrested by CBCID after collecting cogent evidence related to the case. The applicant is of the contention that the impugned order dated 23.12.1997 for recovery of Rs. 5,52,900/- from the applicant was issued by the respondents during the pendency of the investigation of CBCID, which is against the law as no recovery proceedings were liable to have been made until and unless the investigation of CBCID was finalized. Applicant has further contended that after much delay, the respondents have finalized the inquiry but that too, in violation of the statutory rules and prescribed provisions. Furthermore, the applicant has also been held responsible under the provisions of Public Accounts Default Act, 1850 to which applicant's contention is that he is not covered by RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page such an Act and hence contended that respondents have erred in penalizing him under the aforesaid Act. The applicant also cites violation of several Fundamental Rights and constitutional provisions in his case and alleges that principles of natural justice have also not been followed.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
5. Referring to the contents of the OA as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order dated 23.12.1997 was passed under Public Accounts Default Act, 1850 whereby recovery was sought to be made from the applicant without conducting disciplinary proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and also the procedure for imposition of penalty as provided in Rule 16 was not adhered to in the present case of the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that the Public Accounts Default Act is confined to recovery from Public Accountant as defined under Section 3 of the Act to the extent that since the applicant not being a public accountant as defined under Section 3 of the Act, as such, no recovery proceedings can be initiated under the Act against the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that in the instant case, no specific liability amount was fixed on the petitioner for causing loss to the government and straightway the order dated 23.12.1997 was passed under the Act of 1850. Thus, the aforesaid order is illegal as it seeks to make a recovery without affixing the liability on the petitioner without providing opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submitted that the PAD Act 1850 has now been repealed vide Gazette Notification dated 08.08.2019 by the Government of India.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that no inquiry was conducted against the applicant when the impugned recovery order was issued by the respondent no. 1 and the order too was issued under the provisions of Public Accounts Default Act, 1850. The Act nowhere empowers the department to bye-pass the RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page procedure of inquiry, if any, provided under the law and to proceed to make recovery even without finding a person guilty of any loss. Furthermore, in the case of the applicant, the provisions of the Constitution of India as enshrined under Article 313 read with Article 372 and Article 309 were blatantly violated and surpassed. It was further argued that the applicant has been singled out in the case in as much as it is admitted to the higher officers in the department itself that for the loss of Rs. 5,52,900/-, there are some other persons namely Sultan Ahmed, Iqbaluddin and Ram Bahadur who are responsible. But no action has been taken against them and only the applicant has been framed. In the circumstances, the impugned action is also arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made on the part of the applicant to allow the OA in accordance with the relief sought.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the respondents and referring to the counter affidavit and written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, it was argued that a large number of KVP were stolen during the course of transmission from Indian Stamp Depot Nasik Road, Nasik to Patna Junction in 1995. The KVPs were fraudulently encashed at Colonalganj Post Office, Kanpur amounting to Rs. 5,52,900/- As per Rule 23(1)(c) of POSB Manual Vol II, before making payment of KVP's the guard file containing circular of lost / stolen KVPs have to be checked but the applicant without following the aforesaid provision / rule made payment of fraudulent KVPs. This implies that the applicant was not properly functioning his duties and without following due procedure prescribed in rules, made payment fraudulently KVPs which resulted in huge financial loss to the government. Thus, the applicant is fully responsible for loss of Rs. 5,52,900/-. Learned counsel further argued that the competent authority had followed all the procedure prescribed in CCS CCA Rules and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. To substantiate his claim, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page judgment dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs N Gangaraj submitting that the Hon'ble Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal and High Court in that case and restored the order of punishment imposed upon the employee. Thus, learned counsel argued that the applicant is not bound to secure any relief as claimed by him and the OA is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and also carefully perused the available records.
9. As the brief facts of the case have already been recorded earlier, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. In this matter, as is evident from the records, the charge sheet was served upon the applicant leveling allegations against him that the applicant has prompted to encash the Kisan Vikas Patra(s) which were stolen during the course of their transmission between Nasik Road and Patna Junction in the year 1995. The applicant faced an inquiry and on completion of the inquiry, he was punished and a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him as is evident from the record (Annexure No. 6 of RA). Punishment of compulsory retirement has attained finality. The present original application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned recovery proceedings started by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that CBCID investigation was still pending and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has stayed the recovery process vide order dated 12.12.1997. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that despite having been given several opportunities, order passed by the Hon'ble High Court as disclosed in the relief clause and pleadings, referring to which the applicant has claimed that the recovery proceedings were stayed, has not been brought on record. Neither the applicant has apprised the Tribunal about the outcome in the proceedings in which the order dated 12.12.1997 had been passed nor any order in this regard has been brought on record. Record also reveals that before issuing the recovery certificate taking recourse to the RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page provision of Public Accounts Default Act, 1980, inquiry has also been made as would be clear from Annexure No. 3 of CA. Since the applicant has been punished in the disciplinary proceedings for fraudulent encashment of the KVPs, thus, recovery process started against the applicant cannot be said to be illegal. Loss has been caused to the government exchequer due to the misconduct of the applicant. This fact has been proved in the disciplinary proceedings.
10. Thus, having regards to the entire facts and circumstances of the case as available on record and taking into consideration that the very order dated 12.12.1997 said to have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad upon which the applicant has relied upon, has not been brought on record by the applicant despite having been given several opportunities, we are of the considered view that no relief whatsoever can be granted to the applicant and no interference can be made to the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant original application is dismissed as being devoid of merits. The effect and operation of the impugned order remains intact. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
7|Page