Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Since counsel for the applicant failed to comply with the order of previous date and has not even bothered to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on him, hence, he was not heard and we proceed to adjudicate this case by invoking the provisions of Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and respondents counsel has already been heard.

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"1. That the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

That the respondents may kindly be directed to return the amount which has been recovered from the applicant in this regard.

That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the put off duty allowance to the applicant.

That any other benefit or relief which in the circumstances of the case deemed fit and proper be allowed to the applicant.

That the cost of the suit be awarded to the applicant."

The grievance of the applicant in this case is against the order of the disciplinary authority dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure A-1) vide which penalty of recovery of Rs. 2,20,700/- was imposed upon the applicant as also against the order of the appellate authority dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure A-2) vide which his representation against the order of aforesaid recovery was rejected and enhanced to the extent that along with punishment of recovery, the applicant was also debarred from the promotion as well as appearing in all the departmental exam for the next three years.

The background of the case is that payment of several bogus money orders on different dates at Ummargrah BO in account with Jalesar Town SO and now in Tundla SO under Mainpuri Division amounting to Rs. 3,570/- purported to have been issued from different stations. The applicant, during the period from 5.1.2007 to 11.2.2007 while working as GDS BPM Ummar Garh (Jalesar Town) now Tundla S.O. under Mainpuri Division, received or managed to receive forged money orders at his BO for payment to persons resident of delivery jurisdiction of Ummar Garh BO. The details of the said forged money orders paid to different payees under the jurisdiction of above BO are shown in Annexure A-5 at page 37 & 38 of the OA.

4.1 The detailed enquiry was conducted in respect of payment of money orders paid by GDS Ummar Garh revealed that the money orders paid by the applicant to the tune of Rs. 3,55,700/- were actually not issued from any such post office as mentioned in MO forms and also not actually remitted by the persons as noted in MO forms in place of name & address of the remitter of money orders. After detailed departmental enquiry, it was established that Rs. 3,55,700/- which has actually not been received by the department was actually paid to different persons on different dates by the applicant. As such the applicant is responsible for the above loss to the Government. The applicant was therefore proceeded against under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 for the lapses on his part vide Memo dated 6.7.2009 which was concluded by awarding the punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,20,700/- @ Rs. 2000/- per months vide Memo dated 12.8.2009. Aggrieved by the said recovery order, applicant also preferred his appeal to the appellate authority, i.e., DPS Agra Region, Agra and the appeal was concluded with the recovery of Rs. 2,20,700/- & debarring from promotion and appearing in any departmental examination for three years vide Memo/order dated 23.11.2011.

Applicant contended in the OA that he was not held to be responsible for the fraud committed by some other person as he made payment to the receivers after taking witness and that the receiver of the said money orders, who is a departmental employee, was also admitted the amount received, therefore, the recovery should be made against him and not against the applicant.

1 Further contention of the applicant that chargesheet issued to him is vague as there is no specific allegation against him in the said chargesheet.

2 Another contention of the applicant is that the applicant has not caused any loss to the Govt. Rather the entire amount of Govt. loss should be recovered either from the Govt. servant who committed fraud by issuing forged/bogus money orders and from recipient of money orders who receive the payments of forged moneyorder and the recipient of the money orders are Shri Akhilesh Kumar GDS Mail-Deliver, his wife Smt. Madhu Devi, his mother Smt. Triveni Devi, his son Shri Krishna Kumar and his daughter Gunjan Kumari and therefore, the entire amount of Govt. loss should be recovered from the recipients of the money orders under the provisions of departmental rules through the Revenue Authorities viz. Distt. Magistrate Etah.

5.3 Further contention of the applicant is that detailed enquiry should have been conducted by the respondents.

5.4 Further contention of the applicant is that disciplinary as well as appellate authorities have not dealt with the submissions made by him in his representation as appeal while passing the impugned orders. As such the impugned orders are cryptic orders.

Counsel for the respondents argued that actually fraud relating to payment of bogus money orders was committed by eleven Post Offices in Etah Division and amount involved is Rs. 24,08,400/- and total 26 officials/GDS were found responsible for the above payment of bogus money orders. The disciplinary action has since been completed against 22 officials including the applicant and the disciplinary action against 4 officials is in progress. He further submitted that not only the applicant has been awarded the punishment of recovery but also the other officials involved were also imposed the punishment of recovery and referred to internal page 5 of the counter affidavit in this regard.

6.1 Counsel for respondents also submitted that after detailed inquiry only the said punishment of recovery was imposed upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority although the case of the applicant deserves harder punishment. The order of the disciplinary authority is reasoned and speaking one. He also submitted that the appellate authority after detailed examination of the case as well as appeal preferred by the applicant ordered that besides recovery, the applicant be debarred for promotion as well as appearing in all the departmental exam for the next three years.

6.2 He also submitted that there is no procedural irregularity committed by the respondents while passing the impugned orders.

After perusing the material on record and also having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that there is no procedural irregularity committed by the respondents while passing the impugned orders as it is evident that applicant was proceeded departmentally under Rule 10 of the Rules ibid and applicant has also submitted his representation against the same. The disciplinary authority after concluding the detailed inquiry in the matter, imposed the penalty of recovery of amount of Rs. 2,20,700/- to be recovered @ Rs. 2000/- per month from his TRC, as the charge against the applicant is that the applicant while posted as GDS BPM, Ummargarh, Jalesar Town, Etah during 5.1.2007 to 11.12.2007, released payment of moneyorders to the receivers mentioned in front of the amount in the details of list attached and the said payment had been released by the applicant without proper verification, as it was found in the departmental enquiry that all the above money orders were issued fraudulently because of which department sustained a loss of Rs. 3,55,700/-. It is further relevant to note here that the applicant was informed the same vide Memo dated 27.1.2010 that disciplinary authority has not awarded the punishment in accordance with the seriousness of charges, therefore it is proposed to enhance the punishment issued by the disciplinary authority. Applicant was given an opportunity to submit his defence within 15 days. The applicant also submitted his representation on 16.2.2010. Thereafter, the appellate authority after taking into consideration his representation held that the applicant did not satisfactorily discharge his job at the post of GDS BPM, Ummergarh and he released the payment of money orders without getting proper verification, due to which this fraud was committed. The appellate authority further observed that had the applicant must be vigilant towards his duties and got verified the money orders received from post office and inquired the reason of receiving the same from the receivers and thus discovered. Hence, the awarded penalties but did not dismiss him from service. We do not find the punishment awarded to the applicant shocks the conscience of this Tribunal, and as such this Court is not inclined to appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed upon the applicant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995 (6) SCC 749) that the Court will not interfere unless the punishment awarded was one which shocked the conscience of the court.

It is also noted here that applicant is not the only employee who has been dealt with departmentally in similar matters, but 25 other employees were also similarly charged and action was taken after completion of requisite formalities. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the applicant are not convincing to quash the impugned orders. Hence, this is not a vindictive or perverse action against this applicant and decision is taken after following all rules.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the instant OA bereft of merit and hence, the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.