SUNITA GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, precisely for seeking writ direction against the respondents restraining them to recover a sum of Rs. 7, 26, 618/- from her vide letter dated 25-2- 2003 (Annexure-P7) sent by the respondent no.4 followed by letter dated 5-9-2003 (Annexure-P5) issued by the respondent No.7 to the petitioner and also for quashing the recovery proceedings against her.

(2.) AS a matter of fact, the petitioner was a Postal Assistant in the Head Office, Solan from where she was transferred to Parwanoo in District Solan, H.P. Both these offices are under the Superintendent of Post offices, Solan Division (Respondent No.4). While working in Sub Post Office, Parwanoo, the respondent No.4 placed here under suspension and issued Memos Annexure P1 and P2, proposing to initiate inquiry against her, under Rule 14 of the C.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for allegedly defalcating the telephone revenue collections, in Government accounts, collected on various dates while her posting at the aforesaid places and failed to maintain hand to hand receipt book which was in contravention of Rule 4 (1), 195 (b) and 198 of P&T Financial Hand Book Volume 1 (General), Rule 26 of Postal Manual VI Part I and the Conduct Rules. Thus, there has been a loss of the Government revenue to the extent of Rs. 7, 78, 703/- relating to Head Post Office, Solan and Rs. 37, 950/- relating to Post office Parwanoo. An FIR No. 118 of 2000, was also registered on 1.10.2000 in Police Station Parwanoo and another FIR No. 174 of 2000 dated 9.9.2000 in Police Station, Solan, which was later transferred to CBI (Chandigarh Branch) and after completing the investigation they filed the charge-sheet in the Court against the Petitioner and also co-accused Maya Ram, Accounts Officer of Telephones and one Shri R.K.Sood, Assistant Post Master, Solan. The charge-sheet filed by the CBI is Annexure-P3. The petitioner had submitted representation to stay the disciplinary proceedings in view of pendency of criminal case in the Court. Her representation did not yield any favourable response, as such, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1986 before Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench. Learned Tribunal, inter alia, directed the respondents to take a decision on her representation. On this, the respondent no.4 withdrew the Memo dated 15-1-2001 Annexure-P1 vide letter dated 11-1-2002 Annexure-P4. However, the disciplinary proceedings continued against the Petitioner in respect of another charge-sheet issued to her vide Memorandum dated 1-5-2001, Annexure-P2. Consequent to the Inquiry Proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Even her appeal was dismissed.

(3.) NOW the petitioner, after impleading the necessary parties, has assailed the recovery notice Annexure-P5 issued to the petitioner, by the respondent no.7 being wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The main grouse of the petitioner is that she did not owe any amount to the respondents and that she did not embezzle any amount as alleged. According to her, the Telecom Department had never raised any demand with the respondent No.4 or the Postal Department about any misappropriation or shortage in connection with telephone bills. She had in fact deposited the amount of Rs. 90,000/- under duress and no details of the telephone bills and numbers were ever supplied to her. Thus, sought the relief, aforesaid.