ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant U/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:- i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and set aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure No. 1).

ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to refund the amount which has already recovered.

iii) To pas such other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.

2. The facts leading to the present O.A. are that the applicant while working as Mail/OS Lalganj 1st, served with a charge sheet dated 26.9.2014 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The allegation leveled against the applicant is that applicant while working as Mail Over Seer 1st and 2nd Lalganj Sub Division not made inspection during the period from 11.9.2012 to 13.2.2013 of Sakha Dakghar Pakarikla and not made inspection of RD and Savings Accounts physically, due to this misappropriation of money by Mr. Raj Kumar has taken place. Applicant submitted reply to the charge sheet on 1.10.2014 and denying the charges leveled against the applicant. Respondent No. 2 did not agree with the reply submitted by the applicant and imposed two punishment one next increment stopped for 3 months without cumulative effect and second punishment of recovery of Rs. 3,52,000/- in equal 88 installment of Rs. 4000/- per month from the pay of the applicant vide order dated 17.10.2014. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, applicant filed appeal on 28.10.2014 but the same has not been decided so far.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit, stating therein that applicant was working in joint charge as Mail Overseer 1st and 2nd Lalganj, Azamgarh between the period 11.9.2012 to 13.2.2013. During this period, a fraud amounting to Rs. 7,52,600/- came into light in SB/RD account in Pakri B.O. under Tarwa. The applicant failed to verify the balance of SB/RD account. This shows the carelessness and negligence on the part of the applicant. Charge sheet was issued to the applicant. Applicant submitted reply to the same which was carefully examined and disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of recovery of Rs. 352000/- and punishment of stoppage of next one increment for three months without cumulative effect. Applicant preferred appeal but without waiting the reply, he has filed O.A. before this Tribunal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that applicant was not directly responsible for misappropriation of alleged fraud. Admittedly, the fraud was committed by Mr. Raj Kumar, BPM, Pakarikala. The pecuniary loss caused to the department was not on account of the applicant. The punishment order shows that misappropriation was started since long back but the applicant joined on 11.9.2012. Therefore, he is not responsible for the same. It is further argued that as per Postal Saving Bank Niyamawali Khand 1, Rule 75 (1), the Divisional Head SSPos send annual report every year upto 30th June to CPMG for verification of account, hence he is also responsible for the same but no action has been taken against him.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that according to the duty entrusted to the applicant, he had to visit the Branch Post Offices after every three months, but applicant had failed to visit the branch Post Offices and facilitated BPM Parkikala for misappropriation of amount of Rs. 752600/-. Since the applicant could not shoulder his responsibility and discharge his duty according to Rule 355 (2) of Postal Manual Volume VIII, accordingly he was served with a memo of charges under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide letter dated 26.9.2016 and after considering reply submitted by the applicant to the charge sheet, respondents has awarded two punishment to the applicant.

7. We have considered