UOI & ORS. Vs. SH. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns, the order dated 26.11.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi allowing the O.A. No. 662/2010 preferred by the respondent, as also the order dated 19.08.2011 dismissing the application for review preferred by the petitioner. The O.A. aforesaid was preferred by the respondent impugning the departmental order dated 01.11.2008 affirmed by the appellate authority on 19.05.2009 of recovery of Rs. 45,000/ - in nine equal installments from the pay of the respondent. The said recovery was ordered from the respondent for the reason of the respondent, while officiating as Assistant Post Master (APM), SB IVth Group, Aligarh Head Post Office, having failed to supervise the work being done by the Ledger Clerks and having not noted any objection upon the irregularities i.e. incomplete posting work, improper checking of the vouchers, being committed by the Ledger Clerks and which resulted in one Sh. Shyam Pal Singh posted in Somna Post Office committing a fraud and inflicting loss amounting to Rs. 10,56,764/ - on the department. Since the respondent was not the principal offender and had officiated on the position where he was required to supervise the Ledger Clerks for a very short time, inspite of loss being of Rs. 10,56,764/ -, the recovery of Rs. 45,000/ - was ordered from the respondent.

(2.) The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.11.2010 allowed the O.A. of the respondent merely on the ground that since the loss sustained of Rs. 10,56,764/ - had been processed to be recovered from Sh. Shyam Pal Singh against whom an FIR for offences of misappropriation and breach of trust has also been lodged, the recovery effected from the respondent over and above the sustained loss could not be sustained in law.

(3.) The petitioner sought review pleading that the Tribunal had not appreciated that the loss of Rs. 10,56,764/ - could not be recovered from Sh. Shyam Pal Singh and a sum of only Rs. 1,35,695/ - could be recovered from his assets and thus need was felt to recover the remaining loss from the subsidiary offenders including the respondent. The said review was however dismissed as not maintainable.