Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Union Of India vs Sohan Lal Regar (2025:Rj-Jd:47560-Db) on 6 November, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12093/2025
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Government
Of India, Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Post,
Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent Of Post Offices, Pali Division, Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Sohan Lal Regar S/o Shri Hara Ram Regar, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Village & PO- Bolunda, District- Pali (Office Address- Working
as Postal Assistant at Post Office Marwar Jn. Under SPO Pali
Division).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia
Mr. Pooshan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prasad Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
06/11/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'), whereby, the Original Application filed by the
respondent-Employee has been allowed.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that
the respondent-Employee, while working as Sub-Postmaster at
Anandpur Kalu Post Office, was issued with a charge-sheet under
Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCS (CCA) Rules,
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
1965') with the allegation that he had closed the Monthly Income
Scheme (MIS) account and paid interest to the account holder in
contravention of Rules. After holding the full-fledged enquiry,
punishment of recovery of an amount in excess paid by the
respondent-Employee to the tune of Rs.1,48,599/- was awarded
against the respondent vide order dated 28.03.2018. Aggrieved by
the order of recovery dated 28.03.2018, the respondent preferred
an appeal before the Director, Postal Services, however, the same
was also dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2018. Against the
orders dated 27.09.2018 and 28.03.2018, the respondent
preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, vide order dated 23.01.2025, allowed the Original
Application filed by the respondent and quashed the orders
impugned therein. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal dated
23.01.2025, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently submits
that the Tribunal has committed an error while allowing the
Original Application filed by the respondent as the charge levelled
against the respondent was duly proved and there was no illegality
in imposing the penalty of recovery from the respondent. He
further submits that there is a maximum permissible limit
provided under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) for deposition
of the amount and in an irregularly opened account, the
respondent paid interest at the rate of Monthly Income Scheme
(MIS) on an amount beyond the permissible limit under the
Scheme and, therefore, the amount of interest excessively paid
beyond the permissible limit provided under the Monthly Income
Scheme (MIS) is sought to be recovered from the respondent.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
5. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that it
was the bounden duty of the respondent to check the accounts
before disbursing the amount of interest paid on such accounts.
He also submits that the respondent should have seen that the
amount deposited under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) is
beyond the permissible limit and, therefore, the consumer is
entitled for the interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS)
up to maximum sealing provided for deposition of amount under
the Scheme and for the excess of the amount deposited beyond
the permissible limit of the Scheme, the respondent should have
calculated the interest at the rate of savings bank account interest
and then the cumulative amount should have been paid to the
consumer.
6. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that
since the respondent has not taken due care in paying the amount
of interest to the consumer, the petitioner- Department has been
put to loss of a huge amount, which is sought to be recovered
from the respondent. He also submits that due opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the respondent before proceeding against
him and after giving him all reasonable opportunity to defend his
case, the punishment has been imposed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no
other person was involved in the present case for disbursement of
the interest amount and, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly held
that the other persons, who were involved in opening of the
account and dealing with the case should have also been fastened
with the liability to reimburse the excess amount paid in the
present case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
Tribunal has committed an error while allowing the Original
Application vide order dated 23.01.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
seven notices were issued to the respondent for recovery of the
excess interest amount paid to the consumer, but none of the
notices were replied by the respondent. He further submits that
the action has been taken in conformity with the Rule 168 (7) and
(8) of the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and, therefore, no
illegality has been committed by the petitioner-Department. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the
order of Tribunal dated 23.01.2025 may be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while
vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioners, submits that even the MIS account itself was
irregularly opened by some other employee of the post office and
the respondent has merely paid the interest on the amount
deposited under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). He further
submits that since the amount, which was deposited with the post
office was used by the Department, therefore, no liability can be
fastened upon the respondent to pay the excess amount.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there
was no fault on the part of the respondent in making the payment
of interest as he has calculated the interest and paid the amount
as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). He further submits that
the disciplinary authority was not right in passing the order of
recovery in the present case as any other punishment should have
been imposed upon the respondent provided under the Rules and,
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
therefore, the disciplinary authority has committed an error while
passing the order of recovery in the present case.
11. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon a judgment dated 23.11.2012
rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2174/2011 (Union of
India & Ors. Vs. Bheru Lal Samar).
12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as
per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), if the accounts are opened
in contravention of the Rules, then the accounts should be closed
under the orders of the Head Postmaster and since in the present
case, the account was not closed, he was under an obligation to
make the payment on the maturity of the amount. He further
submits that the other employees, who were involved in opening
of the accounts, have not been proceeded by the Department and,
therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application.
He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
13. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case.
14. It has come on record that the respondent, while working on
the post of Sub-Postmaster at Anandpur Kalu Post Office on
11.05.2012 had disbursed the amount of the accounts opened in
Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) by paying the interest beyond the
permissible limit. In these circumstances, the respondent was
proceeded with the issuance of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of
the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the disciplinary authority, after
giving all reasonable opportunity to the respondent, came to the
conclusion that the respondent was negligent in payment of the
interest beyond the permissible limit as prescribed under the
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). It was held that the respondent
was under an obligation to check the accounts and calculate the
interest applicable as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and
if the amount was beyond the permissible limit, then the interest
on the amount was required to be calculated at the prevalent rate
of interest of savings bank account. Rule 168 (7) and (8) of Office
Saving Bank Manual- Volume-I also puts obligation on the
disbursing authority which are reproduced as under:-
"(7) Payment of POSB interest on excess investment
beyond the prescribed limit under Post Office Monthly
Income Scheme :- If a depositor has made an excess
investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post
Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess
deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by
the PM/SPM with the POSB rate of interest to the
depositor. The interest already paid on the excess
amount will be recovered/adjusted from the amount
refunded. The commission paid to the agent on the
excess investment will also be recovered from the
agent.
(8) Conversion of irregular MIS account from single to
joint and vice-versa :- Since the Savings Account Rules
are applicable to MIS accounts, a single MIS account
can be converted into joint account and vice versa. This
facility will not be available for conversion of MIS
account opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed
limits from single to joint or vice versa. In such cases
the amount exceeding the prescribed limit will be
refunded with interest at rate applicable to P.O. Savings
Accounts. The commission already paid on the excess
amount to the agent will be recovered from him."
15. Since the respondent has calculated the interest on the
entire amount deposited by the consumer, therefore, the interest
paid was wrongly calculated and the same was paid in excess to
the permissible limit of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and in
contravention of Rule 168 (7) and (8).
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
16. It was the duty of the respondent to calculate the amount of
interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and the
consumer was entitled for the interest at the rate provided under
the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) to the extent of the amount
which is permissible to be deposited under the Scheme. If the
excess amount has been deposited, then the interest on the same
was required to be calculated at the rate of savings bank account
interest.
17. In the present case, since the respondent failed to calculate
the amount in accordance with law causing loss to the
Department, therefore, he was certainly liable to pay the amount
paid in excess to the consumer as the loss has been caused to the
Department, which is required to be made good for not being
vigilant by the respondent. The action taken by the petitioner-
Department is also in conformity with Rule 168 (7) and (8) of the
Monthly Income Scheme (MIS).
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the Department
has proceeded in the matter and issued the charge-sheet and
after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
respondent, passed a reasoned and detailed order, therefore, the
same is in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In the
present case, since the amount of interest was required to be paid
to the consumer only as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS),
therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly ordered for
recovery of the excess amount, which has been paid in violation of
the Scheme directly causing loss to the Department of post office.
19. In view of the detailed facts narrated above, it is clear that
even if a person, who has opened the accounts de hors the rules
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47560-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-12093/2025]
meant for the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), cannot be a ground
to absolve the respondent-Employee as it was the duty of the
respondent to check before disbursement of the interest amount
to the consumer. Hence, the order of penalty imposed upon the
respondent by the disciplinary authority was just, proper and
correct.
20. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondent rendered in the case of Bheru Lal Samar (supra) is
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
and, therefore, the same cannot help the respondent in the
present matter.
21. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ
petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order
dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set
aside.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
3-Shahenshah/-
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 05:48:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
