Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 2 Others vs Ram Shanker Verma And Another on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104543-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14186 of 2018
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Respondent :- Ram Shanker Verma And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners - Union of India / Post Master.
Petitioner by the instant writ petition is challenging the judgment and order dated 19.12.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, (for short, "Tribunal"), in O.A. No.1944 of 2010, (R.S. Verma versus Union of India and others).
The short question for determination is as to whether the petitioners were justified in recovering Rs.50,000/- for alleged loss caused to the Postal Department on wrong payment of National Saving Certificate (for short "NSC") to the ineligible persons.
It is not in dispute that the respondent - original application while working as Sub Post Master, retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2005. After one month from the date of retirement, a complaint was received alleging wrong payment of three NSC at Rs.50,000/-. The amount was recovered from leave encashment payment of the petitioner vide order dated 19.07.2005. Thereafter, vide communication dated 16.08.2010, a finding was returned that wrong payment was made consequently to recover the loss caused to the Post Office.
Learned Tribunal after noting the facts which is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner was of the opinion that after retirement since no disciplinary proceedings has initiated for making recovery from the salary, without obtaining the approval of the Hon'ble President, the recovery could not have been made suo motu from the salary or post retiral dues of the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions that respondent had not assailed the order dated 19.07.2023, wherein, deduction was ordered from the earned leave account, further, reliance has been made on Rule 7 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein, it is mandate inter-alia that money due from the employee on conclusion of the proceedings can be recovered from encashment of leave on retirement.
Rule 7 is extracted:
"7. Entitlements to Government servant retiring while departmental or judicial proceedings are pending :-
(i) ..................
(ii) 'Encashment of leave' on retirement. The Competent Authority can withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of leave salary if, in its opinion, there is a possibility of some money becoming due from the employee on conclusion of the proceedings. On conclusion of the proceedings, the amount so withheld may be paid after adjustment of Government dues, if any. - Rule 39(3), CCS (Leave) Rules."
We have perused Rule 7, it provides for entitlements to Government Servant retiring while departmental or judicial proceedings are pending. Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 7 mandates that the competent authority can withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of the leave salary that may become due from the Government Servant upon conclusion of proceedings. In other words, on the date when the competent authority passes an order to withhold the money, judicial / disciplinary proceedings must be pending.
On specific query, learned counsel fairly submits that no departmental or judicial proceedings was pending on the date of retirement against the respondent. The deduction was made from the Government Servant after retirement without approval of the competent authority by initiating departmental proceedings, with the approval of the Hon'ble President.
The respondent has not challenged the order dated 19.07.2005, that would have no effect on the merit of the case. Admittedly, the deduction was made without resorting to the mandatory provision i.e. initiating departmental proceedings after the retirement of the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners fails to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
I.A.Siddiqui
