AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs :
“(i) Admit the original application, and
(ii) After hearing the counsels for the parties be further pleased to quash the charge sheet vide Memo No. F/4-1/14-15/Disc-V dated 10.01.2017 at Annexure-A/1 and the impugned order of punishment vide Memo No. F/40-1/14-15 (Disc-V) dated 09.01.2020 at Annexure-A/8 and order of the Appellate Authority vide Memo No. ST/RO/10-17/2020 dated 03.07.2020 at Annexure-A/11 and, consequently, orders may kindly be passed directing the Respondents to refund the recovered amount with interest and give all consequential benefits.
And/or
(iii) Pass any other order(s)……………………”
The case of the applicant is that while working as the Inspector of Posts in Sambalpur West Division he was proceeded under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide chargesheet dated 10.01.2017 (A/1) alleging his failure to detect the misappropriation by one Sri Tarun Tandia, the GDSBPM of Barabazar BO, during his inspection of the said BO and failing in promptly conducting verification of some suspected withdrawals, which could have prevented further misappropriation of Rs. 370000/- by Sri Tandia. Although, he submitted representation refuting the allegations, respondent No.4 considered the same but vide order dated 27.03.2017 (A/3) ordered for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-from his pay @ Rs. 10,000/- per month effecting from April, 2017. Appeal preferred by him was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2017.
Applicant had earlier filed OA No. 438/2017 before this Bench challenging the charge sheet, orders of punishment of DA as well as AA. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.09.2019 allowed the OA in part with the following direction:
“14. As discussed in para 12 above, the point mentioned about non-delivery of the verification memos by the applicant in his reply dated 18.2.2017 (Annexure-A/2) to the charge-sheet has not been disproved by the disciplinary authority in his punishment order dated 27.3.2017 (Annexure-A/3), for which, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it is passed without refuting the claim of the applicant. Unless such claim is refuted, there is no evidence on record to justify the punishment imposed on the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.3.2017 (A/3) and consequent order of the appellate authority dated 3.7.2017 (Annexure-A/6) are set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority (respondent No. 3) to reconsider the letter dated 18.2.2017 (A/2) filed by the applicant in his defence and pass a fresh order in the proceedings in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents, who has already filed counter in the case, submitted that after the aforesaid order of this Bench, the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 09.01.2020 finding that the applicant has failed to detect the fraud on 05.02.2014 despite the fact that he had verified the defrauded account and hence the applicant was found guilty of charges. Accordingly, he was awarded with the punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- per month commencing from the pay of JAN-2020 payable in FEB-2020 to adjust the pecuniary loss sustained by the department partially. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by him was duly considered and disposed of by the competent authority vide Memo dated 03.07.2020 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that applicant having been allowed all reasonable opportunity to defend his case in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the proceedings concluded strictly as per rules and law, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
Besides the reply and counter reply submitted by both the sides, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has taken a specific plea that order of this Bench dated 17.09.2019 in OA No. 438/2017 has not been adhered to while passing the order dated 09.01.2020 by the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Sundargarh Division. This Tribunal also did not find from the counter as well as pleadings of the respondents that the claim of the applicant made in his reply dated 18.02.2017 that he did not receive the verification memos has been specifically disproved by the Disciplinary Authority. No document has also been produced before the Bench to disprove such claim the applicant. When this Bench vide order dated 17.09.2019 had quashed the order of Disciplinary as well as of Appellate Authorities basically on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment without refuting the claim of the applicant made in his reply dated 18.02.2017 regarding non-delivery of verification memos by him and had remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the letter dated 18.02.2017, passing the order dated 09.01.2020 by the Disciplinary Authority again without considering that said fact cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Hence, while quashing the impugned orders of the DA as well as AA vide Memo No. F/40-1/14-15 (Disc-V) dated 09.01.2020 (A/8) and vide Memo No. ST/RO/10-17/2020 dated 03.07.2020 (A/11), the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with the order dated 17.09.2019 (A/7) passed by this Bench in OA No. 438 of 2017.
In the result, the OA stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.