UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATYA JIBAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application directed against a judgment and order dated 29/8/2019 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, thereby quashing and/or setting aside an order of recovery of Rs. 2,24,140.00 and passing a direction upon the authorities/petitioners to refund the recovered amount to the respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a stipulated time.

(2.) The respondent was working as a postal assistant at the Purulia Head Post Office. It was alleged that on three different dates in the month of August 2002, premature withdrawals of monthly income scheme account of the depositor amounting to Rs. 4,10,000.00 and odd were effected at the post office. The amounts were remitted to the messenger of the depositor in cash instead of by an account payee cheque or a demand draft, which was a clear violation of the DG Posts Instruction No. 5-20/UP-06/2000-IND dated 29/08/2001 (the said Postal Instruction, for short) that was issued in compliance with Sec. 269T of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the depositor went before the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum with his grievances. The learned Forum decided that the messenger of the depositor was liable for the misappropriation and ordered him to pay back the entire amount of premature withdrawal. The depositor preferred an appeal before the learned State Commission. The learned State Disputes Redressal Commission arrived at the conclusion that not only the messenger of the depositor but the Purulia Head Post Office was also equally liable for the violations.

(3.) In complying with the order of the learned State Commission, the petitioners purportedly sustained a loss to tune of Rs. 4,67,765.00. The present respondent was thereafter charge sheeted and penalty proceedings ensued. In fact, a penalty was awarded after considering the respondent 's representation dated 31/4/2020 for recovery of Rs. 2,24,140.00 from his pay in 28 equal instalments. The respondent preferred an appeal dated 19/12/2011 before the Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region. However, the appellate authority, by an order dated 09/05/2012, upheld the punishment. Thereafter, the respondent approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Branch.