Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Charan Singh on 21 February, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1082 OF 2011
Union of India & Ors. ....Petitioners
Through Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate.
VERSUS
Charan Singh .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 21.02.2011
By order dated 31st January, 2006, it was held that the
respondent Charan Singh had displayed carelessness and negligence in
discharge of his officials duties and Rs.31,500/- was directed to be
recovered from him in 15 monthly installments commencing from the
month of February, 2006.
2. The respondent filed a revision. The revisionary authority vide
order dated 30th January, 2010, dismissed the revision petition and at
the same time enhanced the recovery of penalty to Rs. 1,23,860/- and
directed that the remaining amount of Rs.92,360/- should be recovered
in 20 equal monthly installments with immediate effect.
3. The said orders were made subject matter of challenge in OA No.
841/2010 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 30 th
September, 2010. Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short)
has held that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the
respondent was charged with the responsibility of performing an act
and he did not act in the said manner which led to the loss to the state-
exchequer. The proceedings resulting in imposition of penalty must
have some semblance of an enquiry.
4. The aforesaid penalty has been imposed on account of
encashment of lost/stolen National Saving Certificates (NSC, for short)
and Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs, for short) at Himmatpuri post office.
The respondent is not the person who had made the payment and was
not posted at Himmatpuri Post Office. The respondent was posted at
Krishna Nagar, Head Post Office and was discharging duties in the
Compilation Branch. The payments had already been made when the
papers/ documents with regard to encashment of the NSCs/KVPs were
received in this office. The factum that the respondent was not
responsible for making the payments is not disputed or denied. In the
order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the Revisionary Authority, it
has been observed as under:-
"It is also a fact that Shri Charan Singh is not the
principal offender. In so far he did not consult
the Negative List or list of lost/stolen certificate,
he is responsible on grounds of serious
contributory negligence. In light of this, the
representation does not bring any point that is
not already known."
5. It is also recorded in the order dated 30.1.2010 that a criminal
case has been filed and the accused were facing prosecution. The
respondent is not being prosecuted and is not an accused.
6. The stand of the respondent was that the negative list i.e. the
instructions dated 8th November, 2000 of the Department of Post, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi, circulated vide letter dated 21st November, 2000
were not available with him while he was working as a compilation
clerk in Krishna Nagar, Head Post Office. It was submitted that the
compilation work did not require checking of each and every discharge
certificate and negative list of lost/stolen certificates was not handed
over to him for checking of the genuineness of the discharged
certificates. The aforesaid position is not disputed or denied either in
the order dated 31st January, 2006 or in the revisionary order dated
30th January, 2010. It is, however, stated that each and every official
was duty bound to keep his knowledge updated. This to our mind is
not sufficient to hold that the respondent was guilty of negligence
which had led to the loss in form of payments. If the negative list was
not circulated, it was lapse on the part of the concerned officer, who
was responsible for circulating the list and bringing it to the knowledge
and informing the concerned officers. The respondent could not have
presumed that there was negative list. There would be a lapse only if
the official concerned, i.e. the respondent, was aware and had
knowledge that there was a negative list but he did not verify. There is
no such allegation or finding.
7. Keeping in view the finding of the Tribunal, and the facts noted
above, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present case in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition
is accordingly dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 21, 2011
kkb
