CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR Original Application No. 290/00335/2018 Miscellaneous Application No.290/00227/2018 Pronounced on : .01.2025 (Reserved on : 18.12.2024)

CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)

Mahendra Chitara, S/o Shri Dana Ram Chitara, Aged about 44 years, 1 ‘A’ 24 KBH B, Basani I Jodhpur. (Office Address: Presently posted at Post Office, Nandanban Jodhpur as Postal Assistant).

….…Applicant By Advocate: Mr. S.P. Singh.

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Dak Tar Bhawn, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-302007.

3. The Director, O/o Postmaster General, Western Region, Jodhpur.

4. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.

5. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.

……..Respondents By Advocate: Mr. K.S. Yadav.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

1. Being aggrieved by order dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure A/2) whereby the applicant was imposed penalty of Rs.76,132/- as also the order dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure A/1) whereby Appellate Authority affirmed the above penalty order, the applicant has preferred this Original Application with a prayer to quash and set aside the above orders and refund the amount recovered from him pursuant to the above orders.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 While initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the charges were framed against the applicant to the effect that the applicant while working as Sub Postmaster, Kaiserganj Ajmer Sub Post Office accepted deposits in three PPF accounts beyond the prescribed limits from depositors resulting loss to the department.

2.2 As per reply to representation filed by the applicant, deposits were accepted by the counter clerk. He also denied violation of any rule of the postal manual. Disagreeing with the representation, disciplinary authority vide impugned order came to the conclusion that though the amounts were deposited by the counter clerk, but being supervisor it was the duty of the applicant to correct the irregularity.

On account of non-detection of the irregularity, the respondent suffered a loss of Rs.3,80,661/-. The disciplinary authority found the applicant guilty and imposed upon him a penalty of Rs.76,132/- to be recovered in installments of Rs.10,000/- each. The appeal filed against the penalty order was also dismissed by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has filed the instant OA.

2.3 It is the case of the applicant that he did not deposit the amount and the same was accepted by the counter clerk. The amount alleged to be deposited in an irregular manner by the counter clerk was utilised by the department. The department has not timely taken any decision. The respondent without assessing the contributory negligence on the part of the applicant punished him in a whimsical manner. The applicant did not violate any rule or order issued by the respondent. Challenging the impugned recovery, the applicant has preferred this OA with a prayer to quash and set aside the recovery order.

3. It is the reply of the respondent that any individual or on his/her behalf a minor whom he/she is a guardian any amount cannot subscribe more than Rs.70,000/- in a financial year in PPF scheme. The applicant while working as SPM Kaiserganj, Ajmer on 21.11.2011 deposited Rs.50,000/- in each PPF account on behalf of the individual and on the next day i.e. 22.11.2011 accepted the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the individual on behalf of minor children. Accepting the deposit beyond the limit resulted in loss of Rs.3,80,661/- out of which disciplinary authority has ordered to recover a sum of Rs.76,132/- from the applicant which is proportionate to his negligence. The applicant has assessed his share in a realistic manner. It was the duty of the Postmaster concerned to watch the financial