DEPARTMENT OF POSTS Vs. BEULA ARULRATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the punishment of recovery awarded to the respondent. The respondent at the relevant time was working as treasurer in Vellore Head Post Office. She was posted there by order dated 13.12.1993. She took charge from one Manoharan on that day. She acknowledged that she had taken over postage and other stamps for Rs. 5,92,903.95 from her predecessor under acquittance in the treasurer's cash book dated 13.12.1993. However, on a subsequent verification of the cash and the stamps, a shortage of Rs.1,41,630/- was noticed in the stamp balance held by the respondent and, therefore, a notice under Rule 16 of Central Civil Service (C.C.A.) Rules 1965 was issued. She offered her explanation. In the explanation she claimed that she had depended upon the signature of the Deputy Post Master in the treasury cash book. She also stated that she believed the full value of the packets which were closed packets. The charge framed against her was on account of the shortage of postage stamps for Rs.1,41,630/- in her possession. It is stated in the charge and more particularly in the fourth paragraph as under :

(2.) In appeal this punishment was reduced and instead recovery of Rs.8,154/- in 36 equal monthly instalments was ordered against her. It was observed by the appellate authority that she had contributed to the success of the misappropriation by her negligence and lack of devotion to duty. However, considering the financial burden on the respondent, the punishment was reduced. This was challenged by her before the Central Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter called the Tribunal.

(3.) The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the whole misappropriation was made not by this respondent but by Manoharan and for this Manoharan, from whom she had taken charge, was already dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority itself had stated that there was nothing to indicate that there was lack of integrity on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that once there was no question of any lack of integrity, there was no question of contributing anything to the misappropriation. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge was framed for one offence while the punishment has been imposed for another offence. Since the contributory negligence and lack of devotion to duty was not the charge made against the respondent, the Tribunal allowed the original application and quashed the punishment awarded by the appellate authority.