AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.123/2018:
Order dated 14.07.2017 dismissing the writ petition in default is recalled and the writ petition is restored.
The restoration application is allowed.
Civil Writ Petition No.2005/2017:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Challenge is to an order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The second respondent had filed a petition challenging an
administrative decision dated 30th September, 2014 directing recovery of ₹3,97,750 from the gratuity payable to the second respondent. The order was
not preceded by any enquiry.
The case of the writ petitioners in the original application was that the second respondent failed to pay regular visit to the Branch Post Offices
placed under his Beat and consequently a fraud in sum of ₹3,97,750/- which occurred in the Branch Post Office Sulakhnia Chhota which came under
his jurisdiction could not detected and loss was caused to the postal authority. It was alleged that second respondent paid a visit to the said post office
on 16.05.2013 and found the Post Master absent but did not report this to the superior authority. To get over the hurdle of inquiry not being held, the
petitioners relied upon Rule 137 of the Postal Manual, Volume-3. The same reads as under:
“137. Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a retired officer in the manner provided in Article 351-A of C.S.R. for the purpose of
withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it either permanently or for a specified period and also for ordering recovery from pension and or
DCR gratuity of the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss sustained by the Government on account of ht negligence of the retired officer. Such orders
can also be passed under that rule and in the manner provided therein, if the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the
period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. The standard forms prescribed are produced as Appendix XI-A
& XI-B.â€
Suffice it to state that the Rule empowers the postal authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired officer in the manner provided by
Article 351 A of C.S.R.
Thus, the said reasoning by the Central Administrative Tribunal is sufficient to affirm the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal quashing
the order dated 30th September, 2014.
We find that in paragraph 18 of the impugned decision the Tribunal has also highlighted that the fraud was committed over a period of time and thus
even if it is treated that the second respondent was negligent in not reporting the presence of the Post Master to the superior officer, it can not be
inferred that if information was given the fraud could have been prevented.
This we note was a moral justification in support of second respondent.
But the primary reasoning has to be that no recovery could be made without issuing charge-sheet and holding enquiry to fix the responsibility.
The writ petition is dismissed.