PER: MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

1. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985, for quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure A-1), order dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure A-2) vide which penalty of recovery of Rs.75,000/- was imposed on him and order dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure A-3) vide which appeal filed by the applicant against penalty order has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined service as Postal Assistant on 15.6.1981 and was promoted as LSG and Cadre HSG-II w.e.f. w.e.f. He was granted Biennial Cadre Review (financial upgradation) w.e.f. 14.2.2008 and benefit of 3rd financial upgradation under MACP on 20.11.2012. He retired from service on 08.2.2017. He was posted as SPM Malikpur S.O. from Civil Courts PO Pathankot where he had worked for about 7 months from 18.5.2011 to 7.1.2012

3. The applicant had been promoted in regular LSG Cadre and had to join as PRI (P) Amritsar HO as ordered by the Circle office. During his stay at Malikpur, he found Sh. Harsh Sood SB/RD Counter PA not working properly and further record was incomplete. To this effect reports were made by the applicant on 30.7.2011, 18.08.2011, 24.8.2011 and 20.9.2011 to the Divisional Office, Gurdaspur, vide No. 044/MLM/2011-12. There was some irregularity in Branch Post Office Narot Mehra for which Sub Post Master Malakpur made a report to ASPO with copy to Sr. Superintendent of Post Office Gurdaspur on which a report was submitted by ASPO, Pathankot, to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurdaspur, that the BPM had admitted the acceptance of deposit amount from the depositor and did not account for the amount into account due to failure to write the deposit entry in RD journal. The amount was deposited into said RD account by the BPM with fine on 23.4.2012 and balance of the account i.e. Rs.17000 was corrected as per AO. It was observed that AO was responsible for the omission / short credit of deposit in the RD accounts. On the one hand the BPM was held responsible for the fault and on the other hand he was sought to be exonerated stating that he has been severally pulled for future work at the spot.

4. The applicant was issued a charge sheet for minor penalty under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with the allegation that while working as SPM Malakpur SO during the period 18.5.2011 to 7.1.2012, he is alleged to have not taken any action to prepare and send the lists of accounts standing at Narot Mehra BO to the concerned ASPOS where annual interest was not posted upto 30th June and violated the provisions of Rule 75 of POSB Manual Volume-1. Due to the lapse/negligence on the part of the applicant, the fraudulent transactions could not be detected and as such he facilitated commission of fraud by Sh. Balkrishan, ExGDSBPM Narot Mehra BO, to the tune of Rs.9,82,728.50 etc.

5. The applicant submitted a representation/reply dated 04.06.2016 denying the allegations leveled in the Charge Memo. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 12.07.2016, however not considering the pleas taken by the applicant in his written statement imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs.75,000/- from the salary of the applicant in 8 equal each instalments of Rs.9,375/-

6. The applicant submitted an appeal dated 25.8.2016 to the appellate authority explaining that he has rendered 36 years of unblemished service and he has a dedicated service to his credit and was awarded Best Performer award by CPMG in 2014 and 2015. However, despite noting the various pleas taken by the applicant in the appeal, the same have been brushed aside only within one or two sentence saying that his contentions are just imaginary and case was decided on merit and as such does not require any review and that applicant has not followed Rule 75 of POSB Manual Volume I and his appeal stands rejected.

7. The applicant has submitted that the impugned charge sheet, penalty order and appellate order are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, various provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as there is no fault on the part of the applicant and he has been punished on the basis of conjectures and surmises only. It is a case of no evidence. Hence the Original Application.

8. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (9) SCC 10, , judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Amrita vs. Union of India and Ors. (CWP No.15808 of 2017) decided on 07.03.2019, order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ravi B. Hansdak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No.350/288/2016) and also order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Hyderbad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R. Gyana Chary vs. Union of India and Ors. (O.A. No.20/46/2014).

9. The respondents have filed written statement submitting therein that Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma Retired ASPM Delivery Pathankot Sub Post Office was posted as Sub Postmaster Malakpur Sub Post Office during the period from 18.05.2011 to 07.01.2012 and was identified as subsidiary offender in Narot Mehra BO fraud case committed by Sh Balkrishan ExGDSBPM Narot Mehra BO in a/w Malakpur SO to the tune of Rs.982728.50 in SB/RD/RPLI as per Divisional Level Inquiry Report vide No.F.4/1/14-15 dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure R1). The lapses on the part of said Sh Ved Parkash Sharma that "he failed to call for SB Passbooks from Narot Mehra Branch Office in which interest was not posted till 30 June each year”. He also failed to prepare a list of such accounts and supply the same to the ASPOS Pathankot as prescribed under Rule 75 & 76 of POSB Manual Volume-1. Applicant was proceeded against under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 for the lapses on his part vide Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurdaspur Division Memo dated 24.05.2016.

10. The applicant submitted his defence statement dated 04.06.2016 against the memo of charges and after going through the defence statement, relevant records and case file, applicant was awarded a punishment of recovery of Rs.75,000/- from the Pay & Allowances of the official in 8 equal instalments of Rs.9375/- each vide Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Gurdaspur Division memo dated 12.07.2016. The appeal dated 25.08.2016 preferred by the applicant against the punishment orders dated 12.07.2016 was decided by the Director Postal Services, Punjab West Region, Chandigarh vide Order dated 31.01.2017 confirming the punishment awarded to the applicant.

11. The applicant has filed rejoinder submitting therein that it is the fact is that Mr. Harsh Sood PA committed fraud of Rs.3404/- in 7 pass books and the modus operandi adopted was that though entries of deposits were available in pass books yet neither the entries were available in LOT nor the amounts credited to PO Account. A report to this effect was made by the applicant on 30.7.2011 to the Divisional Office, Gurdaspur, vide No 044/MLM/2011-12. Similarly 6 more pass books were detected by him in which he had misappropriated Rs.7000/- and a report was sent to Divisional Office Gurdaspur vide letter dated 18.8.2011. Again, applicant made a report against misdeeds of Sh. Harsh Sood vide his letter dated 24.08.2011 and 20.9.2011 regarding 22 pass books and requested the Divisional Office to take stern action against the PA besides conducting Divisional Level Inquiry because Mr. D.R. Ratra, ASP Pathankot, was having very soft corner for him. The Divisional Office did not take required steps and timely action against. Even suggestion of applicant to transfer Mr. Sood was not given any weightage for the reasons not understood resulting into commission of fraud by BPM Narot Mehra which remained undetected. The applicant sent several alerts to the higher ups but to no avail and as such raising accusing finger towards the applicant is nothing but figment of imagination only. When the main culprit has been dismissed, the respondents could not make any recovery from him, so applicant has been made a escape goat and as such impugned order is illegal and recovery of pay at the time of his retirement is too harsh and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted by the applicant that if respondents could not make recovery from real culprit, they cannot punish the applicant in lieu of their fault.

12. This Tribunal has considered the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through annexures attached with the original application. From the pleadings itself, the charge memo was served upon the applicant and the applicant has duly made representation. On the basis of his representation, Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty vide Annexure A-2. Though the applicant has filed appeal before Appellate Authority but the same has also been rejected vide Annexure A-3. The applicant has denied the charges levelled against him in the charge memo. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (9) SCC 10. On the other hand the respondents have submitted that this is a case of minor penalty and on the basis of representation of the applicant, Disciplinary Authority has passed penalty order, which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority and hence the is no illegality in the said orders.

13. In the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the charges were factual and they were denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry should also be called for. That is the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice and such requirement should not be dispensed with. Relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-

“3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a 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 against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement/ cannot be dispensed with.”

It is seen that in the instant case no detailed inquiry has been held by the respondents despite the fact that the applicant has denied allegation levelled against him in the memo of charges.

14. In view of the settled law by the Apex Court, this original application is allowed and Annexure A-2 and A-3 are quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further as per law and rules.