Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Fake cheques in Malay Mukherjee vs D/O India Post on 12 September, 2022Matching Fragments
2. Brief facts as set out in the O.A. are as follows:-
A charge sheet dated 28.04.2015 was issued against the applicant on the ground that when he was working as the Assistant Deputy Director of Post Office (A.D.D.P.O in short) scroll point of Accounts Department during the period from 01.01.2009 to 05.07.2013 he received Bank Debit Scrolls from S.B.I. Kolkata Main Branch regularly showing the debited amount against 18(eighteen) fake cheques drawn from Kolkata G.P.O. to supervise the genuineness of encashment with the corresponding list of drawn from Banks for both pending as well as daily dues work at a time. According to the applicant, no thorough enquiry was conducted in the matter and the charge sheet did not disclose the names of the miscreants and the beneficiaries who made unlawful gain. That, he replied to the charge sheet on 05.05.2015 denying the charges levelled against him. Thereafter disciplinary proceeding was conducted and an order of Disciplinary Authority dated. 15.09.2015 was issued against him imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.4,80,000/- in 20 instalments @ Rs.24000/- per month from the month of September,2015 for the part of pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government for negligerice of duty. The applicant preferred an appeal dated. 27.05.2015 (Annexure A/4) . against the order of Disciplinary Authority which was disposed of on 28.12.2015 with the following orders:-
was penalized which is bad.
Triat the cancelled cheques were required to be destroyed to avoid mischief which was not done. That, the authority concerned has not been able to establish either his connivance with the miscreants or any nexus of the applicant with that of the said cheque-fraud case and when contributory negligence cannot be explicitly attributed to a particular offence, pecuniary liability could have been worked out, therefore, recovery was bad.
4, The respondents have filed their written reply denying the claim of the applicant. They have categorically pointed out that the applicant was entrusted exclusively for supervision of Scroll Work at Accounts Section of Kolkata GPO vide office Memo dated 26.12.2008. He received Bank Debit Scroll from State Bank of India, Kolkata Main Branch regularly showing debited amount against each cheque drawn from Kolkata GPO, but did not supervise the pending as well as daily due work of reconciliation/pairing of the Bank Debit Scrolls to ascertain the genuineness of payment, with the corresponding list of drawn cheques done by the Postal Assistants. As a result, a total number of eighteen fake cheques were debited from Kolkata.GPO Govt. Account with greater amount than the amount actually issued for by the Kolkata GPO, | Thus the department sustained a huge loss amounting to Rs.1,04,32,505/-. That, the competent authority of Kolkata GPO lodged an FIR with the Hare Street PS immediately and the same was registered under No.158 dated 18.03.2011. Subsequently Hare Street P.S. indexed another case vide No.463 dated 12.07.2013 under Section 120B/467/468/471/409/120B/420/511 IPC read with U/s 13 P.C. Act and Hare Street PS/DD Case No.463 dated | 12.07.2013 U/s 120B/467/468/471/409/420 IPC read with 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the competent police authority was going towards framing of Charge Sheet against the prime offender involved in the case. That, the applicant being identified as one of the Subsidiary Offenders was proceeded against under the provision of Rule-16 of cesicca) Rules, 1965 for the specific omissions/negligence/laxity while performing his duty as ADDPO. Scroll point of Accounts Department of Kolkata GPO, elaborated in the Charge Sheet. As such allegation made by the applicant that the Responding Authority made him a scapegoat is not correct.
The respondents in their written reply have stated that thorough enquiry was conducted in the matter and recovery was awarded after assessing the contribution of lapse of the applicant pertaining to the fraud case, in order to adjust the pecuniary loss sustained by the department. According to the respondents, 18 fake cheques were debited from Kolkata GPO, Government Account with greater amount 'than the amount actually issued for by the Kolkata GPO due to the negligence of supervision of Scroll work at the Accounts Section by the applicant, therefore, the applicant's claim is not maintainable in the eye of law and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
(v) Due to disrupted facts a full fledged enquiry was necessary but not considered by the Respondent, in order to unearth the truth of the said embezzlement of Rs.1,04,32,505/- that took place by issuance of 18 fake and forged cheques by alteration/manipulation of the names of payees and the sum amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court in O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Others [2002 SCC (L&S) 188 has ruled "if charges are factual and the same are denied by the employee, even in the case of minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges alleged against him. More over, if the charges are factual and denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the