* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No 3804/2011
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh &
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Shri Narendra Pal .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 30.05.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Department of posts has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in OA No. 1518/2010 and MA No. 858/2010, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short). By the impugned order, the tribunal has allowed OA filed by the respondent Narendra Pal, quashing the penalty of recovery of Rs.2 lakhs for alleged loss of Rs.6 lakhs caused to the petitioner. The said amount was to be paid in 50 installments of Rs.4000/- each. The amount already recovered has been directed to be refunded without interest.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that loss caused has been proved and in the present case the respondent while working as a postal Assistant at the Saving Bank counter in the Aligarh Head Post office, WPC 3804/2010 Page 1 of 3 had accepted 3 cheques of Rs.2 lakhs each, in violation of Rule 29(2) I and 35(6)(10) of the Saving Bank Volume -I, wherein it is stipulated that maximum balance in a single account should not exceed Rs.1 lakh and in a joint account maximum limit should not exceed Rs.2 lakhs. These cheques were later on encashed.
3. Similar contentions were raised before the Tribunal, but were not accepted.
4. The Saving Bank Account in which 3 cheques were deposited had already been opened at the Head Post Office and the fact that these were fictitious accounts was not known to the respondent. The respondent had no role in opening of the said accounts. The password of the respondent was in the custody of Assistant Post Master and was not known to the respondent. Three cheques were department cheques issued by the Senior Post Master, Aligarh. Three cheques were genuine and there is no allegation that these cheques required special attention. The respondent was not a regular incumbent at the Saving Bank counter and had been assigned the said work on a short leave arrangement. Even with regard to the Rule that the Saving Bank Account should not have balance of more than Rs.1 lakh or Rs. 2 lakhs in case of a single or joint account, reference was made to the provisions that the depositor would not be entitled to interest beyond the maximum limit of WPC 3804/2010 Page 2 of 3 deposit. It may be also noted that there was no allegation that the respondent as a con-conspirator and had any link with the person who had committed the fraud.
5. It was in view of the aforesaid facts that the Tribunal had intervened. The tribunal in the impugned order has pointed out that the department authorities had acknowledged that the accounts had been opened prior in time and there was no doubt about the genuineness of the departmental cheques. The fraud not was not committed in the Post Office in question but had been committed on the Sub-Post Office located at Medical College, Aligarh. However, these aspects were ignored and not considered by the departmental authorities. Thus, the tribunal held that there was error and lapse in the decision making process. Therefore, the original application was allowed.
6. There is no error or falicy in the reasoning given by the tribunal. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE May 30, 2011 kkb WPC 3804/2010 Page 3 of 3