UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUKHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners, Union of India and its officials in the Department of Posts seek to question the order dated 08.08.2011 as passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 62/2008 whereby by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') has quashed the orders passed against the applicant (the respondent herein) in the disciplinary proceedings; and has ordered refund of the recovered amount after finding that the proceedings against the applicant had been in violation of the principles of natural justice and the department failed to deal with the principal offenders for the questioned acts/omissions where the applicant was rather a subsidiary offender. The CAT has, however, left it open for the petitioners to hold joint or separate enquiry against the principal and the subsidiary offenders, and then, to apportion the quantum of the loss suffered due to the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- from a Savings Bank Account.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are as follows: The applicant-respondent, while working on the post of Postal Assistant ('PA') in the Savings Bank Control Organization ('SBCO') at Sriganganagar, was served with a memo dated 06.02.2004 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sriganganagar Division (the Disciplinary Authority) proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification and Control Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the allegation that while working as PA, SBCO, Sriganganagar HO on 12.1.2001, he failed to check the Savings Bank (SB) Branch vouchers dated 11.01.2001 with the list of vouchers; and one voucher pertaining to SB withdrawal dated 11.1.2001 for Rs 25,000/- in SB account number 136939, entered in the list at serial number 23, was found missing in the checking carried out on 26.02.2001. It was alleged that the forged withdrawal could not be detected in time for the applicant's failure to check on 12.01.2001 and, therefore, the department suffered a loss of Rs 25,000/-. It was also alleged that for such an omission, the applicant violated Rule 3 (i) (ii) of Part IV of the Postal Small Savings Scheme.

(3.) AFTER examining the stand of the delinquent-respondent and the department, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order on 21.05.2004 holding the respondent guilty of violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) of Part IV of the Post Office Small Saving Scheme and thereby, having contravened the Conduct Rules with dereliction of duty. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, imposed the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.15,000/- together with interest of Rs.1,750/- from the salary of the respondent. This order dated 21.05.2004 was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 30.12.2004 and by the Revisional Authority on 08.02.2007. The relevant aspects of the matter have been succinctly put in the Revisional Authority's order dated 08.02.2007 and the same could be usefully reproduced as under:-