BRAH MANANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the applicant, who is working as Sorting Assistant in the RMS Division, Calcutta, has challenged the charge- sheet dated 26.2.98, the punishment order dated 30.4.1998 and the appellate/ revision orders dated 30.10.1998 read with order dated 25.11.1998 with a further direction to the respondents to refund the amount deducted from his salary.

(2.) During the relevant time, the applicant was working as Sorting Assistant in the scale of Rs. 4,500/-7,000/- under the Sr. Superintendent of Calcutta RMS Division at G.P.O., Calcutta. He wa.s issued a minor penalty charge-sheet dated 26.2.1998 under Rule-16 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The charge levelled against the applicant inter alia stated that while the applicant was working as Sorting Asst., on 4.1.1995, 79 insured letters were lost from his custody though he received the postal bag containing those insured letters in sealed condition. The applicant was found to be responsible for the loss and hence he was charged with violating sub rule (4) of Rule-40 of Postal Manual Vol.-VII. The applicant submitted a representation denying the charge and stated that the bag was handled at different levels after the same was dispatched from the applicant till it reached the destination, and, therefore, it could not be said for sure that the applicant was responsible for the alleged loss or tampering of the postal bag. However, without holding any detailed enquiry to pin point the responsibility of the applicant and without giving him an opportunity, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 30.4.1998, whereby the pay of the applicant was reduced from the stage of Rs. 4,875/- to the stage of Rs. 4,750/- for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.5.1998 without cumulative effect. According to the applicant, the said punishment order was served on him on 6.6.1998. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal on 19.8.1998, which was rejected on the ground of limitation. Subsequently, the appellate authority reviewed the punishment order under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules and held that the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 4,875/- to 4,750/- for one year be revised to recovery of a portion of the loss sustained by the Department i.e. recovery of an amount of Rs. 27,708/- from his pay in 36 installments. By a subsequent order dated 25.11.1998, it was directed that instead of Rs. 27,708/-, the sum of Rs. 16,480/- shall be recovered from the applicant in 36 installments. Against this order, the applicant made a further review petition on 7.12.1998 and finally has filed this application for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) The respondents have filed the reply in which it is stated that the applicant was entrusted with the job as Air Mail Closer on 31.1.1995 and he received closed and sealed registered bag the from the concerned Sorting Assistant to consign the same inside the mail bag in the presence of the RSA etc. It is further stated that the mail bag which was closed and sealed by the applicant in the presence of the RSA was handed over to the mail agent without any acquitance as required under the rules. It is further submitted that the Registered bag was to be received by the applicant in between 00.00 hrs. to 00.30 hrs on the next calendar day, but was included in the mail bag at about 2.30 a.m, which means that he detained the said bag in his custody for about 2 hrs. The destination station of the concerned bag reported that the mail bag was in open condition and 79 insured letters were missing therefrom. Therefore, the applicant was found to be responsible for the loss. It is further stated that in his representation to the charge memo the applicant did not ask for holding of an enquiry and, therefore, on consideration of his representation, punishment order was issued by the competent authority. It is further stated that although the punishment order was issued on 30.4.1998, it could not be served on the applicant before 6.6.1998 as he was on leave from 1.5.1998 to 1.6.1998. It is further stated that the applicant though filed an appeal but it was beyond the prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, it was not entertained. But the appellate authority in exercise of his power of review under Rule-29, reviewed the punishment order and imposed the punishment of recovery. Thus, they have urged that no illegality was done as the applicant was found responsible for the pecuniary loss caused to the Government and, therefore, the same was ordered to be recovered from him which is a minor punishment.