Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
P.K. Sinha vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 3 November, 2011
(OPEN COURT) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD this the 03rd day of November, 2011. HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER - J. HONBLE MR. SHASHI PRAKASH, MEMBER- A. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1266 OF 2009 P.K. Sinha, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Sri M.P. Sinha, R/o A-16, C.R.P.F Colony, Rampur, Posted as P.R.O at S.P.O, Rampur. Applicant V E R S U S 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Deptt. of Postal, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Director, Postal Services, Bareilly. 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Moradabad. 4. Post Master, H.P.O, Rampur. ..Respondents Advocate for applicant : Sri Bhagirathi Tiwari Advocate for the respondents : Sri R.K. Srivastava O R D E R
BY Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, J.M..
The instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 is directed against the order dated 14.07.2009/Annexure A-1. Further prayer has also been made for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.07.2008/Annexure A-2 of O.A.
2. The facts are not disputed , therefore, no need to spelt out the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the same very charge another officer namely Smt. Meena Kumari, who was posted as Sub Post Master, Modipur, Rampur has also been issued charge sheet and ultimately after conducting full-fledged inquiry, she was held guilty of the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of removal from service dated 23.04.2001 against her. A copy of order dated 23.04.2001 has been produced by the counsel for applicant before us, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that once the respondents themselves have identified the main culprit/offender, therefore, the applicant cannot be penalized for the loss caused by her. In this behalf he referred to order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 750/98 J.M. Makwana Vs. U.O.I & Ors reported in 2002 (1) ATJ 283 and order dated 05.04.2005 passed in O.A No. 1341/2003 O.P. Singh Vs. U.O.I & Ors and submitted that this Tribunal have already held that one who is not directly responsible for the cause of loss cannot be held responsible for the loss substantiated to the Government.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that Smt. Meena Kumari was held responsible for the loss caused to the Government amounting to Rs. 1,93,800/-. He further argued that though the applicant cannot be held responsible for the loss caused to the Government but for the act of negligence the department can initiated disciplinary proceeding against him. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the instant case the charge sheet has been issued after 12 years from the date of occurrence, therefore, liberty cannot be granted to the respondents to conduct inquiry against the applicant. In this regard he has referred to a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported as 2005 (106) FLR 1003 - P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D, Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
4. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. Once the respondents themselves have passed an order dated 23.04.2001 holding Smt. Meena Kumari responsible for the loss sustained to the Government, therefore, for the same very loss, the applicant cannot be held responsible and recovery cannot be made. Our view has been supported by the order in O.A No. 750/98 J.M. Makwana Vs. U.O.I & Ors and O.A No. 1341/2003 O.P. Singh Vs. U.O.I & Ors (Supra) . Therefore, this question is decided in favour of the applicant.
5. With regard to the second question for pursuing the charge sheet for the act of negligence against the applicant, we are afraid that this request of the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Madhawan (Supra) as in the instant case the charge sheet has been issued after 12 years from the alleged misconduct / negligence. In view of the above even the charge sheet dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure A-2 of O.A) issued to the applicant is liable to be quashed.
6. In view of the above, the O.A is allowed. The order dated 14.07.2009/Annexur A-1 and Charge Sheet dated 28.07.2008/Anexure A-2 are hereby quashed and set aside. No other points raised. Parties to bear their own costs.
MEMBER- A MEMBER- J
Anand/
??
??
??
??
3