Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Shri R.C. Gaur on 30 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No 3800/2011
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh &
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Shri R.C. Gaur .....Respondent
Through
Writ Petition (Civil) No 3801/2011
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh &
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Babu Lal .....Respondent
Through
Writ Petition (Civil) No 3802/2011
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh &
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Ravindra Kumar .....Respondent
Through
WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 1 of 7
Writ Petition (Civil) No 3803/2011
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh &
Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Shri Yogender Singh .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 30.05.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
These four writ petitions arise from a common order dated 27th
August, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short), partly allowing OAs filed by the
respondents and deleting the penalty of recovery of loss. The tribunal
has, however, upheld the punishment of withholding of increments by
applying the doctrine of severability.
2. The respondents are working in the Department of Posts and
were awarded minor penalties under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as
per details given below:-
(i) R.C. Gaur and Babu Lal were awarded punishment of recovery of
Rs.1,00,000/- in 50 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,000/- p.m. from
their pay and allowance. Withholding of one increment for one year
without cumulative effect was also directed.
(ii) Ravindra Kumar was awarded punishment of recovery of
Rs.50,000/- in 20 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,500/- p.m. from his
pay and allowance. Further he was punished with withholding of one
increment for six months without cumulative effect.
(iii) Yogendra Singh was awarded with punishment of recovery of
Rs.40,000/- in 20 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from his
pay and allowance. Punishment of withholding of one increment for six
months without cumulative effect was also imposed.
3. The facts of the case are that one, P.S. Bhardwaj, Sub-Post Master,
Kakore had committed fraud and is facing criminal prosecution. It is not
alleged that the respondents were aware or had knowledge of the said fraud.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents were co-conspirators
or have received any consideration from P.S. Bhardwaj.
4. R.C. Gaur in his defence had stated before the authorities as under:-
"1. That the case relate to S.B. Fraud committed by
Sh. P.S. Bhardwaj, S.P.M., KAKORE.
2. That modus operandi of fraud is to accept money
from public to invest in various saving schemes of
post officers, but not to account for such amount in
P.O. A/cs.
3. That in respect of whole of the fraud S.P.M.
KAKORE did not informed Khurja H.O. through L.O.T.,
issue journals and daily accounts.
4. That Khurja H.O. is far from KAKORE S.O.
approximately 40 kms away.
5. That the only source of transactions of a S.O. to
be known at H.O. is daily account alone.
6. That H.O. has not occasion to make a manual
visit of a S.O. for this work. Inspecting authority are
there who carried out inspection/visit as well as
watched personally the conduct of the S.P.M. that it is
a fact known to all that P.S. Bhardwaj was not a fit
person to be posted a single handed S.P.M. because
of his previously, known conduct. Despite this he was
found responsible for some serious anomalies by Sh.
S.R. Meena A.S.P.O's R.K. Garg A.S.P's & Ramnath
A.S.P.O.'s Khurja. Such an anomalies were brought to
the notice of S.P.O.'s Bulandshahr who turned a deaf
ear to and it was because that S.P.M. KAKORE
leisurely proceeded in committing fraud over a period
of four years. These responsible officials are at large
and have been let to go scot free and we the poor
people are being make to pay the piper.
That the applicant was post master, Khurja
who had no exclusive and direct concerned of the
work of the S.P.M. KAKORE. In between P.A. and
A.P.M.'s were there to exercise check over the work
of the S.P.M. KAKORE directly and never was informed
of any other serupru loses activity of the S.P.M.
KAKORE. Hence, obviously I have been dragged in this
case, arbitrarily."
5. Similar defence was taken by the other respondents in response to the
summary procedure adopted by the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS
(CCA) Rules.
6. However, the contentions raised by the respondents were rejected
and punishment was imposed upon them as stated above. Tribunal by the
impugned order has set aside the punishment of penalty of recovery of the
loss. The penalty of withholding of increment has been upheld. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once there is a loss and the
misconduct is proved, penalty of recovery is to follow and is mandatory. It is
submitted that there were violations of guidelines and instructions issued
with regard to distribution of work etc. It is submitted that in case these
guidelines and instructions had been followed, the fraud would have been
detected earlier and the disciplinary action would have been taken against
P.S. Bhardwaj and probably they would not have suffered the loss.
7. The Tribunal has quashed the penalty of recovery of loss recording as
under:-
"The Tribunal had taken due note of the fact that
none of the applicants had been charged with
misappropriating any amount nor an allegation of
their integrity being doubtful had been leveled. It was
also noted by the Tribunal that there had been no
allegation at all against any of the applicants about
being co-conspirator in the misappropriated amount.
The fact of there not having been any detailed inquiry
as to in what manner the lack of vigilance in their
duties and responsibilities could have been construed
to hold them responsible for one fraud had also been
taken into consideration. While relying on several
decisions by the other Benches of the Tribunal, the
view had been taken that as none of the applicants
had been charged with misappropriating any amount
or allegations of doubtful integrity had been leveled
against them, the order of recovery of loss without a
detailed inquiry could not be held as sustainable."
8. It is accepted that the respondents were not involved in the said fraud
and are not co-conspirators. It is also accepted they were not aware of the
fraud committed by P.S. Bhardwaj. They are not facing any prosecution.
There is no direct link or inter-connection between the loss committed by
P.S. Bhardwaj and the conduct of the respondents. The authorities after
examining the allegations and the nature of misconduct and non-compliance
made by the respondents, had imposed minor penalty of stoppage of
increments for different periods. The petitioners did not feel and regard
that it is a fit case for imposition of a major penalty. The respondents had
also given their explanation and have explained that they were not
responsible or parties to of the fraud committed by P.S. Bhardwaj. In the
present case only an oral enquiry has been held and the procedure under
Rule 16 has been followed.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to issue notice in the
present writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed in limine.
However, the petitioners are granted two months' further time to comply
with the directions of the Tribunal for refund of the amount recovered.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
May 30, 2011
Kkb
