Preventive measures can be applied to freeze accounts during investigations of alleged fraud where sufficient suspicion is present, emphasizing due process rights under Article 300-A.

ORDER

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj Division, Baripada-Opposite Party No.2 wherein the prayer of the petitioner to allow the closure of the two T.D. accounts and withdraw the amount deposited therein has been rejected.

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The petitioner had a joint Savings Bank Account No.3684009048 with her husband and it was being maintained by the petitioner. In that account, she had deposited the amount received as compensation on accountof the death of her father in a road accident, and also other financial benefit from her parental property. After a few years, the petitioner decided to close the above joint account and open two fixed deposit accounts in the Barasahi Sub-Post Office, Barasahi. On 14.11.2018, the petitioner deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in both the T.Ds. for five years under term deposit scheme dividing the amount in two equal amount i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-. Two account numbers were assigned to the petitioner i.e. 4199367364 and 4199364912. In February, 2020, the petitioner suffered from various health ailments including a serious gynaecology problem. In order to meet the expenses, the petitioner approached the opposite party No.3 to close the T.D. accounts and withdraw the amount deposited therein. However, the opposite party No.3 refused to close the account. The petitioner made several representations to opposite party No.2 informing about her grievance of non- closure of term deposit account and making payment thereof. Not finding any other way out, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P(C) No.27409 of 2021 seeking direction to the opposite party No.2 to consider the representation made by her. In turn, the Court ordered Opposite Party No. 3 to consider the request of the petitioner but he rejected it alleging that the petitioner’s husband has been involved in commission of the fraud of Rs.5,64,160/- in booking of Value Payable Articles from 02.09.2017 to 19.11.2018. For the ongoing investigation against her husband, who was a suspended employee of the postal department under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965, her request cannot be honoured.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No.3 while passing the impugned rejection order, has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is not a part of the Departmental Proceeding and therefore, her saving accounts cannot be confiscated. In this respect, it is submitted that, there are no provisions under the Public Accountants’ Default Act, 1850 mandating confiscation of the movable and immovable properties of the offender.

5. It is pertinent to mention that, in the charge sheet, the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the husband of the petitioner has been stated to be Rs.2,59,040/-. However, in the impugned rejection order, the opposite party No.2 has stated that an amount of Rs.5,64,160/- has been misappropriated which is false and has been stated intentionally to frustrate the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the said T.D. accounts. It is further submitted that once the amount alleged to have been misappropriated is mentioned in the charge sheet, investigation stops after the issuing of the charge sheet and no further amount can be added but in the instant case the amount has been more than Rs.5,00,000/-.

6. It