Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Daya Shanker Pandey And Others on 17 February, 2020
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25887 of 2006 Petitioner :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Daya Shanker Pandey And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.C. Sinha A.S.G.I.,Chandrika Prasad,Rakesh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Awadhesh.Tiwari Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandrika Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 4.5.2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'O.A.') No.195 of 2004 whereby punishment and Appellate Orders dated 19.12.2002 and 16.10.2003 have been set aside and applicant-respondents have been held to be entitled for all the benefits.
3. Facts, in brief, are that the applicant-respondent no.1 Daya Shanker Pandey during the period 6.7.1997 to 30.6.2000, was posted as Sub Postmater, Gadwar, District Ballia. One Bhim Prasad, Postal Assistant, posted to assist the applicant-respondent. In the year 1998, a large number of National Saving Certificates/ Kisan Vikas Patras/ Indira Vikas Patras sent by Nasik Security Press for West Bengal Circle, were stolen in transit by some racketeers. The information of loss of the articles was conveyed by circular dated 1/2 February, 1999, which was received in the office of Postmaster (General) on 7.2.1999, but he circulated it to the concerned post offices on 1.2.2001.
4. In the meantime, one Parmatma Singh holding National Saving Certificates came for encashment for which verification was sought from Sub-Postmaster, who endorsed verification of the particulars of National Saving Certificates and thereupon, the payment was made. The applicant-respondent was served charge-sheet on 30.3.2001 on the ground that he made payment wrongly and after holding departmental enquiry, punishment was imposed for recovery of Rs.40,600/- vide order dated 19.12.2002. The applicant-respondent preferred an appeal, which was rejected on 16.10.2003. The Tribunal has found that factum that National Saving Certificates were stolen and the post offices were cautioned for not encashing the payment, was circulated vide circular dated 1/2 February, 1999 which was received by the Postmaster (General) on 7.2.1999, which took almost two years for further circulating the same. In the meantime, the payment was made by the applicant-respondent, hence, it cannot be said that the applicant-respondent is in any manner responsible for the same.
5. It has been contended that the payment for more than Rs.20,000/- ought to have been made by cheque and not by cash, but in this regard, on questioning to the learned counsel for the petitioner that is there any provision at the time of encashment, he has given no reply.
6. In these facts and circumstances and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, no error apparent on the face of the impugned order has been found.
7. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020 GK Sinha