2021 (12) TMI 421 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking refund of recovered amount from post office - procedural irregularity or not - premature withdrawals of monthly income scheme account - HELD THAT - The respondent was working as a postal assistant at the Purulia Head Post Office. The process of making payments at the post office comprised of the following steps. After an MIS pass book was presented to the counter, the signature was to be tallied by the ledger clerk. Thereafter, the Assistant Post Master signed the vouchers. Only then could the respondent pay any sum of money to the messenger or payee concerned in cash. Therefore, quite clearly the respondent was not the disbursing authority - once the Assistant Post Master signed the vouchers and sanctioned the payment, it was not open to the respondent to stop such payment. As such, no liability for any purported illegality in making such payment in cash could be attributed to the respondent. Besides, although the respondent had clearly disputed the allegations in the charge sheet issued to him, no enquiry was conducted in this case. In O.K. BHARDWAJ VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 1996 (10) TMI 522 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, held that if the charges were factual and if they were denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should be called for. However, in the present case, no such enquiry was undertaken although the delinquent respondent/employee disputed the allegations levelled against him. The implication of the respondent in the alleged irregular disbursement of money on Monthly Income Scheme account of a depositor to a messenger does not appear to be tenable either on facts or in law - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of recovery order quashed by Central Administrative Tribunal
2. Alleged irregularities in premature withdrawals at Post Office
3. Imposition of penalty on respondent
4. Compliance with procedural requirements in disciplinary proceedings

Issue 1: Validity of recovery order quashed by Central Administrative Tribunal
The judgment concerns an application challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to quash a recovery order of ?2,24,140 and direct the refund of the amount to the respondent with interest. The respondent, a postal assistant, was implicated in the premature withdrawals of a depositor's Monthly Income Scheme account, leading to a loss incurred by the petitioners. The respondent appealed the penalty imposed, which was upheld by the Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region. The Tribunal was approached subsequently.

Issue 2: Alleged irregularities in premature withdrawals at Post Office
The petitioners argued that the respondent, as a postal assistant, could have issued sanctions for withdrawals and closures of accounts, emphasizing compliance with the Income Tax Act. They contended that the respondent was aware of the relevant laws and should not claim ignorance. The respondent's counsel countered, asserting that the Assistant Post Master was responsible for disbursements, not the respondent. They highlighted procedural irregularities in the charge sheets issued to the respondent.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on respondent
The respondent disputed the allegations in the charge sheet but no inquiry was conducted. Citing legal precedents, the respondent's counsel argued that an inquiry should have been conducted when charges were denied. The judgment emphasized that the respondent's involvement in the alleged irregular disbursement did not hold under the circumstances presented.

Issue 4: Compliance with procedural requirements in disciplinary proceedings
The judgment noted that two charge sheets were issued to the respondent for the same cause of action, violating the Director General P & T Orders. It was highlighted that the first charge sheet did not mention relevant circulars and provisions, leading to the initiation of a second proceeding. The failure to conduct an inquiry despite the respondent's denial of charges was also noted.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, dismissing the application and emphasizing the lack of grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment. No costs were awarded, and certified copies of the judgment were directed to be delivered to the respective advocates promptly.