UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. MD. LATEEFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2017 in O.A. No. 1091 of 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal held that penalty of recovery of loss cannot be imposed on a Government servant for his failure or negligence in adhering to procedures/instructions, which might have resulted in the committal of fraud by a third party.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is specifically stated in the Charge that the respondent has contributed to the fraud committed by Sri. K.Ramakotaiah, Ex-SPSM, for the amounts noted against each account, and thereby, failed to maintain devotion to duty as required by him under Rule-3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

(3.) Admittedly, there is no charge against the respondent that due to his misconduct, the petitioner-Department has caused pecuniary loss. To this effect, the learned Tribunal has framed an issue whether such negligence which allegedly led to committal of fraud by the main offender can be a ground for imposition of the penalty of recovery of loss from the respondent. The learned Tribunal has referred to the order dated 22.11.2004 in O.A. No. 344 of 2003 and batch, wherein it is observed that the applicants therein had approached the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority imposing the penalty of recovery on the ground that they were negligent in not detecting the frauds committed by the staff of the Shabda Pratap Ashram, Gwalior Sub-Office. The charges leveled against the applicants therein pertain to violation of Postal Savings Bank Volume-I and Rule 3(1)Iii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. After considering the question as to whether violation of non-statutory rule by an employee can invite a penalty of recovery under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Tribunal held as follows: