Punishment of Recovery of Fine Challenged in CAT Tribunal

Punishment of Recovery of Fine Challenged in CAT Tribunal

by

Last Updated on July 11, 2020 by Satish Mishra

This is a case digest where Punishment of Recovery of Fine is Challenged in CAT Tribunal wherein the appeal before the Appellate Authority stands dismissed by department and applicant moved to Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Bench for quashing of orders.  Petitioner worked in Indian Postal Department popularly known as India Post as LDC (Lower Division Clerk).  The department was successful in proving that the theft occurred due to sheer negligence of the applicant and thus the petition before CAT bench got dismissed.

Employees of India Post can Challenge any order of Indian Postal Department if they are not happy or satisfied before CAT Chandigarh Bench for any service matters arising out of their professional engagement with the department where CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) Chandigarh Lawyers Advocates dealing with service matters of the department can provide legal assistance or opinion in this regard.

Also Read- SUIT FOR RECOVERY CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI

Now let’s read the judgment:

Recovery of Money from Government Servant

N K Saxena vs Union of India

19 September, 2018

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD

Original Application No.445 of 2010

Petitioner- N.K Saxena

Respondents- 1.Union of India through the

  1. The Chief Post Master General
  2. The Post Master General
  3. The Superintendent of Post offices

The applicant seeks quashing of order dated 14.10.2008 whereby punishment of recovery of Rs. 229920/- was ordered to be effected from the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) and order dated 26.3.2009  whereby his appeal against the order of punishment was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (AA).

Also Read- Disciplinary Proceedings Procedure in India

Facts as per the Original Application:

  • That initially applicant was appointed as Postal Clerk and after completion of 16 years of service, he was promoted on the post of L.D.C.
  • That the applicant was promoted on the post of Sub Post Master, Farrukhabad.
  • That On 11.11.2006, a theft took place in which an amount of Rs.4, 59,840/- was stolen after breaking the lock of Strong Room as well as Iron Almirah.
  • That On 13.11.2006, applicant lodged the F.I.R. in the Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad.
  • That after enquiry Police arrested Shri Devi Sahai Bajpayee, who was working on the post of Treasurer at the same Post Office. Police submitted chargesheet against Shir Devi Sahai Bajpayee and thereafter Shri Devi Sahai Bajpayee was bailed out.
  • That respondents issued a charge-sheet on 01.07.2007 under Rule 14 of CCS (Conduct) Rules against Shri Devi Sahai Bajpayee, Shri Sukhdeo Mishra and the applicant.
  • That applicant filed his reply to the chargesheet and denied the charges levelled against him. Applicant received enquiry report and against enquiry report, applicant filed representation on 6.5.2008.
  • That on 14.10.2008, the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing and without application of mind, passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2008 and imposed the penalty of recovery.
  • That applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 06.11.2008 and Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of applicant on 26.3.2009.

Also Read- Petition in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh for MACP Scheme

Grounds on which the applicant challenged the Recovery orders:

  1. Rule 11 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules clearly provides that imposition of penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapse on the part of the employee either led to commission or fraud or misappropriation are frustrated as a result of which it is not possible to locate the real culprit.
  2. Respondents illegally imposed the penalty against the applicant as the real culprit has already been located.
  3. The impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind as no modus operandi of the fraud or misappropriation was indicted by the respondents.
  4. As per enquiry and charge-sheet submitted by the Police, it is clear that no theft took place and whole amount was stolen by Shri Devi Sahai Bajpayee (the Treasurer).
  5. While passing the impugned orders, the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority has directed to recover the amount from the DCRG of the applicant, which is totally illegal because applicant has not yet been retired from service.
  6. The real culprit being located and police filing the charge sheet against that person as such there was no occasion for the department to serve a charge sheet against the applicant
  7. Charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (Conduct) Rules was issued against applicant, Devi Sahai Bajpayee (Treasurer) and Sukhdeo Mishra (Chowkidar) but the department deliberately did not take any steps against Devi Sahai Bajpayee to complete the enquiry and he retired on 31.8.2008 whereas Sukhdeo Mishra was exonerated from the charges levelled against him despite his being the real culprit and has been charge sheeted by the police.
  8. Directing recovery of the amount from DCRG of applicant is illegal and since applicant has not retired no recovery can be made from the DCRG.

Also Read- Removal From Service Challenged in High Court after CAT Tribunal

Timeline of Events:

Counter Affidavit submitted by the respondents:

  1. disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated on 01.02.2007 for the theft taken place on 12/13.11.2006
  2. The case of the applicant was decided on 14.10.2008 and passed recovery order.
  3. Against the punishment order, applicant filed appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

Averments made by the applicant:

  1. The applicant has not been given full opportunity of hearing while passing the recovery order.
  2. The police have already enquired the matter and submitted chargesheet against Shri D.S. Vajpayee
  3. Shri D.S. Vajpayee was arrested and bailed out and as such action against the applicant is totally illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.

Also Read- MACP CAT Tribunal Bench Case Legal Advice

Supplementary counter affidavit by the respondents:

  1. as per Rule 84 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part III, the applicant being the SPM of Farrukhabad S.O. was the joint custodian of the office cash balances for the overnight safe custody along with treasurer
  2. Hence, the applicant is also responsible for the loss caused to the Government.

Judgments cited:

  1. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484
  2. S. Saini v. State of Punjab and ors (1999) 8 SCC 90
  3. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, (2006) 2 SCC 373
  4. 08.2009 in OA No. 459/PB/2009 Smt. Veena Mahay vs. Union of India
  5. 09.2011 in OA No. 497/09 Shiv Bhushan Singh vs. Union of India and others
  6. OA 750/98 J.M. Makwana vs. Union of India and others decided on 04.09.2001
  7. A. Anandi v/s Union of India decided on 17.1.2014
  8. OA Nos. 344/03, 353/03, 354/03, 355/03 and 357/03 Smt. Kalpana Shinde vs. Union of India and others

Also Read- Reservation in Promotion Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

Findings of the Court:

  1. The power of judicial review does not authorize the Tribunal to sit as a court of appeal either to reappraise the evidence/materials and the basis for imposition of penalty.
  2. Tribunal is not entitled to substitute its own opinion even if a different view is possible.
  3. The charge against the applicant stands proved that the negligence of applicant afforded an opportunity to the thieves to steal the cash when he did not keep the cash in more secure Godrej burglar safe custody and the theft resulted in loss of Government money to the tune of Rs.459840/-
  4. The DA under the provisions of Rule 106/107/111 of Postal Manual Vol. III imposed monetary liability upon the applicant to the extent of Rs.229920/- (50 % of loss sustained by the Government.
  5. The applicant duly participated in the enquiry and cross- examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The applicant also submitted his written defence note to the Inquiry Officer.
  6. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report, vide his report dated 7/15-4-2008 finding the charges against the applicant as proved.
  7. In his relief the applicant has not made any prayer regarding the report of the I.O. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant laid much emphasis on the findings of the inquiry.
  8. We find that the inquiry report and the findings recorded therein are not under challenge.
  9. The applicant has only sought quashment of the order of penalty and the order passed by the appellate. In absence of there being any challenge to the inquiry report and the findings recorded therein, it is not permissible in law to examine the validity of the findings of the inquiring authority.
  10. After considering the materials available on record including the applicant’s representation made against the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 14.10.2008 imposed upon applicant the penalty of recovery.
  11. Applicant has been unable to show any infirmity in the order of respondent No. 4 upholding the order of punishment.
  12. The applicant, in discharge of his duties, was required to discharge his duties with utmost sense of integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, and to ensure that he did nothing which could result in loss to the Government.
  13. The applicant was in charge of Sub Post office Farrukhabad and whatever may be the criminal liability in the criminal case filed in the Magisterial Court, the applicant in the present case was also jointly responsible for safe keeping of the government money and therefore cannot escape the charge of negligence which led to loss of money of the Government.
  14. The learned counsel for the applicant having argued that the findings are without any evidence, we did peruse the inquiry report. The charge of causing loss of Government money due to his negligence has been proved against the applicant.
  15. The conclusions derived by the inquiring authority are based upon evidence.
  16. The adequacy of the evidence cannot be looked into by the Tribunal so long the view of the inquiring authority is one of the possible views. The argument of the applicant’s counsel that the findings are perverse cannot be accepted.
  17. The appellate authority has recorded sufficient reasons in its order and considered the stand of the applicant as per his memo of appeal.
  18. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the orders are without reasons is not correct. Suffice it to say that the administrative authority is not required to write a judgment, as is written by a court of law.

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

The O.A. is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed.

Also Read- Free Legal Advice related to service matters in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

Conclusion

The applicant seeks quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby he was directed to recover the loss made to the government through him. However he appealed against the same to the Appellate Authority and his appeal got rejected. After due inquiry and investigations of the matter, the present application got dismissed.

More info on 99888-17966.

This post is written by Rashika Garg.

Call Us