Employee's failure to calculate interest according to permissible limits under the Monthly Income Scheme led to lawful disciplinary action, emphasizing the responsibility of employees in public service.

Order :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Original Application filed by the respondent-Employee has been allowed.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the respondent-Employee, while working as Sub-Postmaster at Anandpur Kalu Post Office, was issued with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965’) with the allegation that he had closed the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account and paid interest to the account holder in contravention of Rules. After holding the full-fledged enquiry, punishment of recovery of an amount in excess paid by the respondent-Employee to the tune of Rs.1,48,599/- was awarded against the respondent vide order dated 28.03.2018. Aggrieved by the order of recovery dated 28.03.2018, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Director, Postal Services, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2018. Against the orders dated 27.09.2018 and 28.03.2018, the respondent preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 23.01.2025, allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent and quashed the orders impugned therein. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal dated 23.01.2025, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently submits that the Tribunal has committed an error while allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent as the charge levelled against the respondent was duly proved and there was no illegality in imposing the penalty of recovery from the respondent. He further submits that there is a maximum permissible limit provided under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) for deposition of the amount and in an irregularly opened account, the respondent paid interest at the rate of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) on an amount beyond the permissible limit under the Scheme and, therefore, the amount of interest excessively paid beyond the permissible limit provided under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) is sought to be recovered from the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to check the accounts before disbursing the amount of interest paid on such accounts. He also submits that the respondent should have seen that the amount deposited under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) is beyond the permissible limit and, therefore, the consumer is entitled for the interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) up to maximum sealing provided for deposition of amount under the Scheme and for the excess of the amount deposited beyond the permissible limit of the Scheme, the respondent should have calculated the interest at the rate of savings bank account interest and then the cumulative amount should have been paid to the consumer.

6. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that since the respondent has not taken due care in paying the amount of interest to the consumer, the petitioner- Department has been put to loss of a huge amount, which is sought to be recovered from the respondent. He also submits that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent before proceeding against hi