Union of India through Postal Master General U.P., Lucknow vs Shanker Ram (since deceased and represented by legal representatives)

THIS appeal is from the order dated 25.09.2001 in complaint case no. 148/SC/1999 of Uttar Pradesh (UP) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter "the State Commission"). By this order, the State Commission directed as under: "The complaint is partly decreed for a sum of Rs.3, 09,000/- along with 18% per annum from 1st March till the date of payment against Opposite Party No. 4 and with cost of Rs.3000/- The complainant is also entitled to claim a sum of Rs.8000/- against the above named Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties No. 4 to 6 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts. Complaint against Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today."

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the Union of India represented through the Post Master General, UP, Lucknow and the Post Master, Post Office, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Allahabad have come up in appeal. (i) The appellants were Opposite Parties no. 4 and 5 before the State Commission while the Director, National Savings Organisation (NSO), Nagpur; Regional Director, NSO, Allahabad and Director, National Savings Scheme, Lucknow respectively were Opposite Parties no. 1, 2 and 3. Opposite Party (OP) no. 6 (one Kapil Gupta) was a small savings agent appointed by the NSO, to work in the jurisdiction of the Post Office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Allahabad. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties by their rank in the original complaint.

(ii) We may also notice at this stage that the NSO is an organisation under the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs of the Central Government in over-all charge of the small saving schemes in the country as a whole while each State Government has a Directorate of Small Savings, with officers in each District who, in collaboration with the officers of the Department of Posts (including Post Masters of Post Offices) actually operate the schemes. The Ministry of Finance of the Central Government lays down, through the NSO, the overall policy as well as general operating instructions governing various aspects of small savings schemes applicable generally while the Director General of Posts (or, Secretary, Department of Posts) issues detailed operating instructions for the Post Offices through which most of schemes are actually run. Both the NSO and the State Governments appoint agents to promote and operate the saving schemes according to the criteria laid down. These agents work in close co-operation with the Post Offices to which they are attached. It would also appear that while OPs 1 and 2 were officers of the NSO, OP 3 was a State-level officer of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

It is undisputed that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh with OP 5 in one-year term deposits under the National Savings Scheme in account no. 57309 in February 1995 in the name of his wife, Savitri Devi and another sum of Rs.1.11 lakh with the same OP in the same scheme under account no.57310 in March 1995. These deposits matured in 1996. (i) It is the case of the complainant that the maturity amounts of these two term deposits were re-invested by him in similar 1-year term deposits through OP 6 in 1996. OP 6 issued the receipts to the complainant for these re-investments and also handed over to the latter four passbooks bearing accounts no. 57402 for Rs. 80,000/-; no. 57472 for Rs. 61,000/-; no. 57471 for Rs. 75,000/- and no. 57471 for R. 62,000/- in February 1996. It was also stated that the process was repeated in 1997 and OP 6 similarly informed the complainant that the maturity amounts had been reinvested in one-year term deposits of the National Savings Scheme. In early 1997, OP 6 handed over to the complainant four passbooks, purportedly issued by OP 5, for accounts no. 57402 (Rs.88,000/-), no. 57472 (Rs.88,000/-), no. 57403 (Rs.68,000/-) and no. 57472 (Rs.68,000/-). [Note 1: It appears that there are several discrepancies in the numbers of accounts and the corresponding deposit amounts in the complaint itself and between the complaint and the impugned order of the State Commission. We shall revert to this point in due course.] However, on examination of the entries in the passbooks, the complainant found over-writings and consequently contacted and learnt from OP 5 that OP 6 had not deposited any amount in the name of the complainant either in 1996 or in 1997. On 31.05.97, the complainant went to the office of OP 2 at Allahabad along with OP 6 and in the presence of two officers of the NSO, OP 6 gave a written statement in his own hand that he had reinvested the maturity amounts of the complainant''s 1995 term deposits in similar term deposits in 1996 and further reinvested the amounts in 1997 in the same Post Office, i.e., OP 5. Though he admitted that there were over-writings in the passbooks, OP 6 wrote that he had the counterfoils of the receipts issued against the passbooks and undertook to produce them on 02.06.97. Thereafter, however, OP 6 was untraceable which led the complainant to file an identically-worded written complaint dated 05.06.97 with OP 2, OP 3 and OP 4 specifically informing them about the misappropriation and alleging that this had been done by OP 6 with the connivance of some Postal employee(s) at OP 5 Post Office. It appears that after receipt of the complainant''s written complaint, OP 2 cancelled the agency of OP 6 by its letter dated 17.07.97. By its letter dated 15.12.97 OP 2 also informed the complainant (in reply to the latter''s letter of 04.11.97) that if any agent obtained money from a member of the public (depositor) and misappropriated it, proceedings are initiated against the agent concerned under the Departmental Rules in addition to lodging FIR with the Police and, on completion of the enquiry and establishing misappropriation, the amount deposited by the depositor concerned with the agent is refunded to him along with appropriate interest. By letter dated 11.02.98, OP 2 further informed the complainant that an FIR had been lodged against OP 6 on 19.01.98 at Police Station, Colonelganj, Allahabad. However, thereafter, no action was taken by any of the OPs 1, 2 and 3. This compelled the complainant to serve a legal notice dated 14.06.99 in reply to which OP 2, by its letter dated 29.06.99, denied the liability to refund the invested amount with interest on the principal ground that the passbooks relating to the deposits were bogus and prepared in collusion with some employee of the OP 5 Post Office and hence the NSO was not liable and also that it had not been possible to recover the amount after completion of the departmental inquiry from OP 6 because the latter was not traceable.

(ii)After receipt of this letter, the complainant filed the above-mentioned complaint before the Stat e Commission praying for refund of the amount deposited by him (Rs.3 lakh) in addition to Rs.3.30 lakh as interest and tax w.e.f. February 1997 till the date of filing of complaint, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental stress, agony and hardship and Rs.32,000/- towards expenses and legal costs.

(iiii) After detailed consideration of the evidence, documents and other material brought on record by the parties, the State Commission passed the impugned order.

We have heard Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant - Department of Posts, Government of India (represented through OPs 4 and 5); Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant and Mr. R.N. Singh with Mr. Sushil Das, Advocates on behalf of respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 (who were OPs 1, 2 and 3 before the State Commission). None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 5 (OP 6).

THE first point urged by Dr. Singh is that the appellants (OPs 4 & 5) did not receive any notice from the State Commission either on the complaint or for the early hearing on 12.09.01, the date on which the State Commission reserved its orders on the complaint. In view of this, the appellants could neither appear before the State Commission nor file their written versions. THE State Commission thus passed the impugned order ex parte against them. His second submission is that one-year TDS account no. 57309 was opened by the complainant in the name of one Savitri Devi with the initial deposit of Rs.1 lakh through one Nalini Verma, Agent no. 129 on 09.01.95 and the final payment of Rs.1,10,920/- was received by the complainant under his own signature on 13.01.96 and the account was closed. Similarly, account no. 57310 in the name of the complainant was opened with the deposit of Rs.1.11 lakh and was closed finally on 28.02.96 with the complainant receiving the payment of Rs.1,23,121/- under his own signature. No further account was opened in the name of the complainant with OP 5 Post Office. Thus, the complainant falsely alleged before the State Commission that the maturity amount of accounts no. 57309 and 57310 were reinvested through OP 6 in 1996. THE four account numbers reported by the complainant in the complaint were in the names of altogether different persons, namely, account no. 57402 for Rs. 10,000/- in the names of Shri Ram Mani and Shri Manish Kumar, opened on 09.08.1999 and closed on 11.08.2000; account no. 57403 for 10,000/- in the name of Shri Manish Kumar Gupta opened on 11.08.1999 and closed on 11.08.2000; account no. 57471 for Rs. 16,000/- in the name of Shri Niwas Shukla opened on 10.08.2001; and account no. 57472 for Rs. 40,000/- opened in the names of Shri Devendra Kumar and Smt. Kanchan. In short, Dr. Singh contends that the allegation of the complainant that he had reinvested the maturity amounts of his TDS deposits with OP 5 through OP 6 (authorised NSO agent no. UPA-311) was not borne out by the records of OP 5 Post Office. Dr. Singh further contends that in view of the said position, it would appear that the said agent, OP 6, himself prepared four fake Post Office passbooks in 1996 and, on being reportedly asked by the complainant to further invest the maturity amounts in 1997, did not hand over any new passbooks but returned the same fake passbooks after making forged (over-written) entries to show the maturity amounts of the above-mentioned respective deposits, i.e. , accounts no. 57402 at Rs.88,000/- (over-written on Rs. 80,000/-); no. 57472 at Rs. 68,000/-(over-written on Rs. 60,000/-), no. 57403 at Rs.80,000/- (over-written on Rs. 75,000/-); and no. 57471 at Rs. 68,000/-(over-written on Rs. 60,000/-). [Note 2: THE discrepancies referred to in Note 1, paragraph 3(ii) above thus get clarified by the copies of documents furnished by the appellants during these proceedings and the foregoing submissions of Dr. Singh.] Dr. Singh further states that if at all the complainant had been deceived and the sum handed over by him to OP 6 had been embezzled as alleged, it was OP 6, the NSO''s authorised agent who alone committed the alleged crime as the complainant had, by his own showing, handed over his passbooks for one-year TDS deposits along with signed receipts for payment of the maturity amounts for re-investment. Thus, it was OP 6 alone who could have committed the alleged misappropriation as well as the forgery in respect of the passbooks and the entries therein. OP 5 (appellant 2) had no role or liability in this matter, more so because OP 6 was a small savings agent appointed the Regional Director, NSO, i.e., OP 2/respondent 3. Moreover, according to Dr. Singh, the NSO, as an organisation under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is an entity distinct from the appellant Department, i.e., the Department of Posts, Government of India. THE officers of the said NSO, in their prolonged correspondence with the complainant since June 1997, had clearly admitted that the said OP 6 was an authorised savings agent appointed by OP 2 (Regional Director, NSO, Allahabad) and that in the event of an embezzlement being committed by such an agent and the same being proved, the appointing authority of the said agent was liable, under the rules and instructions governing the National Savings Scheme, to refund to the defrauded investor the sum so embezzled with interest as due. In this case, the officers concerned of the NSO had initiated departmental enquiry proceedings against OP 6 and also lodged an FIR with the Police in respect of the crime committed by the latter. While it might be that the NSO was unable to proceed with and conclude the enquiry because OP 6 absconded soon thereafter, the NSO officers concerned could not disown their liability on that ground nor could they shift the responsibility by advancing the plea that the fake passbooks were prepared by OP 6 in collusion with the local officers of the OP 5 Post Office. Finally, Dr. Singh points out that the ground taken by the NSO officers that an authorised NSO agent was permitted to handle cash deposits only upto Rs. 50,000/- and hence the NSO could not be liable if the complainant handed over cash of more than that amount to OP 6 for re-investment was untenable because, under the instructions applicable to the Scheme in question, there was no cash transaction for re-investment of maturity amounts of such term deposits. (i) On the other hand, on behalf of the LRs of the deceased complainant, Mr. Choudhary argues that the matter had been unduly delayed because of dispute between the NSO and the Department of Posts as a result of which the complainant could not get redressal of his grievance during his lifetime. He draws attention to the statement dated 31.05.1997 written in his own hand by OP 6 in the presence of the deceased complainant and two Deputy Directors of the NSO in the office of OP 2 at Allahabad which has a clear admission of OP 6 that in February and March 1997 he had deposited, on behalf of the complainant, the sums of Rs. 88,000/-, Rs. 85,000/-, Rs. 68,000/- and Rs. 68,000/- respectively as one-year term deposits with OP 5 Post Office by issuing receipts and handed over the passbooks of the relevant accounts to the complainant. While admitting the over-writing in the entries in these passbooks, OP 6 had also written in this statement that he had the counterfoils of the corresponding original receipts of these deposits and assured to produce them on 02.06.1997. That this statement OP 6 was recorded in the office of OP 2 (as claimed by the complainant) in the presence of one of the Deputy Directors (Shri Ram Singh) of NSO was borne out by the letter dated 14.07.1999 of the said Deputy Director, NSO, Allahabad to the Regional Director, NSO, Allahabad. As pointed out by the complainant in his letter of 04.11.1997 to the Regional Director, NSO, this statement clearly established the receipt of the claimed sums from the complainant by OP 6 and its subsequent embezzlement by the latter. That the NSO subsequently failed to complete the enquiry against OP 6 and recover any sums from him or whether there was any collusion between OP 6 and any official of OP 5 in forging the passbooks handed over to the complainant in respect of his TDs did not affect the complainant''s right to get refund of the sum involved with due interest thereon. Mr. Choudhary, therefore, urges that the either the NSO or the appellants, both being organisations/Departments of the same Central Government, should accept the liability and promptly pay up the amounts due.

(ii) During the course of hearing of this appeal, we had directed learned counsel for OPs 1 and 2 to obtain and report the latest position of the departmental enquiry against OP 6 as well as that of the Police investigations, etc., subsequent to the FIR that was lodged by these OPs against OP 6. By letter dated 06.10.2009 (copy produced before us), one Shri Krishna Muarari, Deputy Director, NSO, Lucknow informed the Regional Director, NSO, New Delhi that the enquiry, initiated after recording the statement dated 31.05.1997 of OP 6, could not be completed as the said OP 6 absconded thereafter and that an FIR was also lodged on 19.01.1998 by the then Regional Director with the Police Station, Colonelganj, Allahabad. Thus, the status of both the cases is as it was 12/13 years back. Probably because of this, learned counsel for OPs 1 and 2 did not make any submissions beyond repeating the basic points in their written version before the State Commission.

From the documents, pleadings and averments on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties before us, the following conclusions flow: (i) Undisputedly, OP 6 was a small savings agent appointed by OP 2. He admitted, inter alia, in his hand-written statement of 31.05.1997 that he had received the maturity values of the complainant''s TDs, amounting to Rs. 3.09 lakh in February - March 1997. This statement was recorded before (at least) one Deputy Director (Shri Ram Singh) of the NSO at Allahabad.

(ii) That OP 6 did not actually re-invest the amount in four TDs with the Post Office at Kasturba Gandhi, Marg, Allahabad during either 1996 or 1997 is not in doubt in view of the firm averment of the appellants that no account, TD or otherwise, in the name of the complainant was opened at that Post Office in either 1996 or 1997 and the documentary proof by way of photocopies of passbooks pertaining those account numbers, produced before us by the appellants which explicitly show that the actual holders of the account numbers given by the complainant in his complaint pertained to altogether different persons and that each of these accounts was opened much after 1996 or 1997. None of the other parties has even attempted to rebut this averment or the documentary evidence.

(iii) The above-mentioned admission of OP 6, considered with the appellants" averments and documents noted above, would show prima facie that it was the former alone who misappropriated the amount he had received for the complainant for re-investment in 1996 itself and prepared the fake passbooks at that time. If he had not and the other claims made in his statement of 31.05.1997 were true, there is no earthly reason for him to abscond from the day after giving the said statement in the presence of responsible officers of the NSO at Allahabad and not presenting himself for the departmental enquiry, initiated on the basis of that very statement, to prove the validity of his claims.

(iv)(a) The position regarding refund of misappropriated amounts to the depositors in such a situation was explained by the Regional Director, NSO in his Hindi letter dated 15.12.1997. This letter (freely translated into English) informed the complainant to the effect that if an agent receives, while working as such agent, any money (from depositors " supplied) and misappropriation of that money is established then action is taken against such an agent according to the rules which (action" supplied) also includes lodging of FIR. In addition, the amount misappropriated is refunded to the depositors by the Department/Government and, treating the date of receipt of the sums by the agent as the date of receipt, due interest is also paid. But keeping in view the liability of the Department/Government, it is necessary for this that the Department/Government get its position clarified through departmental enquiry.

(b) However, as pointed out by Dr. Singh as well as OPs 1 and 2, the provisions of paragraph 24A of the OM no. F 1 (53) NS/57 dated 31.12.1959 on Standardised Agency System issued by the Ministry of Finance (DEA) and Special Circular No. 66 dated 04.03.1960 of the Director General, Posts, as amended from time to time, are as under:

"24A. Misappropriation of Investors" money by the agents:- In case of misappropriation of Investors" money by the agents, the Appointing Authority concerned should deal with the matter and take suo motu prompt action in the matter and see that investigation of the cases is not delayed in any circumstances. It is the duty of the Appointing Authority to obtain information, ascertain the extent of such misappropriation, locate the defrauded investors, realize the losses from the agents and/or their sureties and also take steps for issue/antedated certificates, etc. The Paying Authority is also responsible for proper payment of commission."

(v) Considering the fact that OP 6 was undisputedly an agent appointed by OP 2, the State Commission''s reasoning and findings against the appellants (and completely absolving the OPs 1 to 3) are entirely erroneous. In fact, the State Commission erred in not affording a second opportunity to the appellants to file their written version/defence even if none had initially appeared on their behalf after issue of the notice for the first time when both the complainant and OPs 1 to 3, particularly the latter, took the plea that the fraud was committed in collusion with some employee of the OP 5 Post Office.

(vi) As regards the issue of refund of the money entrusted by the complainant to OP 6 and prima facie misappropriated by him (agent appointed by OP 2) is concerned, the main points in defence taken by OPs 1 and 2 and OP 3 in their separate written versions filed before the State commission were as under:

(a) OPs 1 and 2 " According to the prescribed norms of Standardized Agencies Services, the maximum amount of cash deposit that an agent was authorised at the relevant time to handle at a time was Rs.50,000/- throughout the country. However, in this case the deposits of the complainant purportedly given to OP 6 in both 1996 and 1997 were well above that limit. Therefore, the OPs were not liable. Further, in the absence of any accounting of the cash receipts by OP 6 or his claim for commission, it could not be established that the cash transactions as alleged were carried out by OP 6. As the Passbooks stated to have been issued for the four accounts opened were of OP 5, this would need confirmation of OPs 4 and 5. Though it was an admitted fact that misappropriation of money had been committed by OP 6, the enquiry initiated against the latter could not proceed because he did not turn up after 31.05.1997. Unless the misappropriation of the money was established and it was also established that the transactions between depositor and the agent were made through agent receipt books, the OPs were unable to provide any relief to the complainant. Since the misappropriation of the deposited amounts as well as over-writings in the Passbooks had been made, the Post Office (OP 5) and the agent (OP 6) were answerable and OPs 1 to 3 had no role in the transfer of the amounts. The only role of these OPs was to the extent that they would settle the claim on the deposited amount subject to supply of the receipt books and their certification by the Postal authority. OPs had also lodged an FIR against OP 6 with the Police Station concerned and the matter was referred to OPs 4 and 5. OPs 1 and 2 were not aware of the action taken by the latter. It was not clear from the complaint whether the complainant had deposited the amounts through OP 6 and obtained money receipts therefor. Nor it was clear if over-writings in the Passbooks were done by any employee of the OP 5 or by OP 6 and from whom the complainant obtained the Passbooks. As the misappropriation appeared to have been committed at the office of OP 5, the latter should conduct further enquiry to fix responsibility/liability and OP 2 did not come in the picture unless it was proved through receipt books that the transactions were carried out according to the norms of the Government of India in this behalf. Repeated opportunities were given to the complainant to produce the cash receipts for the money that he claimed to have handed over to OP 6 for re-investment. It would be for OP 4 to conduct enquiry into these aspects and take further action.

(b) OP 3 " The main points urged on behalf of OP 3 (apparently an officer of the Government of Uttar Pradesh) was that the agent OP 6 having been appointed by OP 2, it was the latter, as the appointing authority, who had to investigate into the matter to see if the misappropriation as alleged had taken place and, hence, the State Government was not responsible. The appointing authority, after satisfying itself that misappropriation had actually taken place, was also required to recover the amount from the agent and/or his sureties. If, after adopting and completing the said process of recovery, the appointing authority was satisfied that the amount could not be so recovered, it might recommend sanction of refund of the money misappropriated with interest to the Ministry of Finance of the Central Government through the National Savings Commissioner, NSO, Nagpur.

(c) From the foregoing, it is obvious that neither was the preliminary/departmental enquiry against OP 6 brought to a logical conclusion nor was any action taken by OPs 1 and 2 to even initiate any recovery proceedings. If an accused in a departmental enquiry absconds and/or does not present himself for examination before the Enquiry Officer appointed for this purpose, there are provisions in all the relevant instructions/manuals of all Government Departments on how to proceed with such enquiries. There is no evidence that this was done by OPs 1 and 2. As already noticed in paragraph 5(iii) above, the status of action both in respect of the enquiry and the Police case is as it was 12/13 years ago. Thus, the responsibility for not completing the departmental enquiry against the agent OP 6 or not pursuing the Police complaint further for such a long time has to be that of OPs 1 and 2, particularly when in their written statement they clearly admit that the misappropriation was committed by OP 6, an SAS agent appointed by OP 2.

(d) One important point that OPs 1 and 2 raised in their defence needs to be noticed. In his letters to the complainant during 1997, the then Regional Director of NSO at Allahabad repeatedly asked the complainant to produce the receipts stated to have been issued by OP 6 to the complainant when the latter authorised him to re-invest the maturity amounts of his two term deposits. The complainant specifically stated in his complaint as well as affidavit-in-evidence that in 1997, OP 6 took back the receipts after handing over to him the four passbooks. However, there was no averment of the complainant as to what happened to the receipts of the re-investments claimed to have been done by OP 6 in 1996 on behalf of the complainant. In view of the averment of the appellants that no deposit account was opened in the name of the complainant in 1996 after the two 1-year term deposits no. 57309 and 57310 had matured in 1996, this absence of any averment about the status of receipts for deposits by way of re-investment assumes significance which is further heightened by the complete silence of the complainant on the question of production of receipts of deposits issued by OP 6 when the re-investment was stated to have been done for the first time in four separate accounts.

(vii) Some more unanswered questions emerge from the material before us. It was the case of the complainant that he entrusted OP 6 with the task of re-investing the maturity values of the two term deposits of 1995 for which he duly filled in the form of payment of the maturity amounts of the deposits as well as that for re-investment. The maturity values of the two term deposits, as demonstrated on record by the appellants, were Rs. 1,10,920/- and Rs. 1,23,121/- respectively, i.e., total of Rs. 2,34,041/-. On the other hand, the complainant averred that the maturity values of these two term deposits (Rs. 2,34,041/-) were re-invested in February 1996 in four term deposits of values of Rs. 80,000/-, Rs. 61,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 62,000/- respectively, i.e., total of Rs. 2,78,000/-. How can the sum of Rs. 2,34,041 be re-invested as Rs. 2,78,000/-? There is no averment that the complainant, at the time of this re-investment in 1996, handed over additional sum of nearly Rs. 34,000/- to OP 6. Thirdly, assuming that the amounts re-invested in February 1996 were exactly as claimed by the complainant, it is difficult to see how the maturity values of the individual amounts in 1997 would be as claimed by the complainant. For this, we place the relevant figures in the table below:

Thus, for the 1997 maturity values of the 1-year term deposits made in 1996 to be as claimed by the complainant, the rate of interest would have to vary from 9.68% per annum to 13.33% per annum " this is absurd, to put it mildly. Fourthly, the complainant was not an average gullible investor/depositor who would swallow, hook, line and sinker, the story of a smart agent " he retired as the Additional Agriculture Production Commissioner of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and, while in service, worked as the Director in charge of National Savings on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as pointed out in the reply of OP 2 to the legal notice served by the complainant''s advocate. How such a person failed to obtain proper receipts for the deposits of his "life savings" he claimed to have made through an SAS agent and also notice the obvious discrepancies between the amounts deposited and their maturity values have remained unexplained in the entire proceedings before the State Commission and us. It is also unclear why the complainant chose to invest his life savings through an agent based in Allahabad and in a Post Office at Allahabad when he was himself living in Lucknow in the relevant years of 1996 and 1997. Because of these laches on the part of the complainant, it cannot be concluded that he was able to prove the misappropriation of Rs. 3.09 lakh by OP 6 in 1997, as claimed in the complaint. Since it is also clear that OP 6 committed the misappropriation in 1996 itself before re-investment in one-year TDs, the complainant''s claim of interest as admissible on such TDs would also not be tenable.

(viii) Considering, however, the clear written admission dated 31.05.1997 of OP 6 and that of OPs 1 and 2 in their written version before the State Commission about OP 6 having committed misappropriation and the fact that, though responsible as the appointing authority of OP 6, these OPs failed to take expeditious steps to either conclude the enquiry against OP 6 or recover any part of the misappropriated amount due to their own lethargy after 1997, what can be concluded is that the complainant would be entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 2,34,041/- that he undisputedly received in 1996 on maturity of the two term deposits of 1995 and entrusted to OP 6 for re-investment, which OP 6 misappropriated. However, the appellants, OPs 4 and 5, cannot be held responsible for the misappropriation or any liability for refund.

IN conclusion, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission which is erroneous in its findings against the appellants as well as that regarding the amount refundable to the complainant. We, however, hold that the complainant would at best be entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,34,041/- and that respondents no. 2 and 3 (OPs 1 and 2) would be jointly and severally responsible to refund the said sum to the legal representatives (LRs) of the complainant/respondent no. 1. Moreover, in the facts of the case, it would, in our view, meet the ends of justice if interest is allowed on the sum of Rs. 2,34,041/- from 01 March 1996 at rates admissible, from time to time, on deposits in Post Office savings bank, till actual payment. The full payment may be made jointly to the LRs of the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. The original documents produced by the appellants in the proceedings before us (and kept in a separate envelope) may be returned to them along with the fees deposited by them for filing the appeal, with accrued interest, if any, thereon.