RAFIQ HUSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -appellant has lost from both the courts below and has preferred the present second appeal. The plaintiff was working as a clerk at Head Post Office, Kanpur and was on medical leave and reported for work on 17.4.1975. The plaintiff -appellant was posted to work in the Parcel Import Branch where he worked till the forenoon of 19.4.1975 when he again fell ill and took leave from 1.00 p.m. on 19.4.1975 and thereafter availed medical leave for ten days. After four months the plaintiff -appellant was served with a charge sheet dated 13.8.1975 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kanpur, proposing to take action against the plaintiff -appellant under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for alleged misconduct.

(2.) THE charge -sheet stated that the plaintiff -appellant failed to carry out the physical verification of the insured parcel on 18.4,1975 as a result of which one insured parcel No. 290 remained unaccounted till 22.4.1975 on which date the said insured parcel No. 290 was substituted by some miscreants with parcel No. 914, resulting in the loss of Rs. 10,000 to the department. The plaintiff -appellant was charged for gross negligence in not carrying out the physical verification of the insured parcels violating Rule 200 (3) of the Post and Telegraph Manual Vol. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Manual'), thereby resulting in the loss by substitution of parcel No. 290 with parcel No. 914 which was valued at Rs. 10,000.

(3.) THE Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kanpur by order dated 23.3.1977 held that the plaintiff -appellant was guilty in not verifying the parcels on 18.4.1975 thereby violating Rule 200 (3) of the Manual. Due to the careless discharge of checking duties on 18.4.1975 by the plaintiff -appellant, it allowed the insured parcel No. 290 to remain unaccounted and unentered in the insured parcel abstract register. On account of this carelessness it provided a loophole to some miscreants to remove parcel No. 914 on 22.4.1975 and substitute parcel No. 290 with parcel No. 914. The disciplinary authority further held that the lapse on the part of the plaintiff -appellant contributed to the loss of parcel No. 914 and therefore, the plaintiff -appellant was held partly responsible for the loss of insured parcel No. 914 and a sum of Rs. 2,400 was directed to be recovered from the plaintiff -appellant's pay in 24 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 100 per month.