Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 703

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Ranajit Mondal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./350/1683/2023

Advocates:
For the applicant(s): Mr. J.R. Das (Counsel)
For the respondent(s): Ms. D. Nag (Counsel)

Recovery penalty against subsidiary offender in fraud requires specific proof of loss caused by lapses, realistic contributory negligence assessment, and compliant charge sheet; absent these, orders quashed despite valid procedural discretion on enquiry.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 16 - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(i),(ii),(iii) - Postal Savings Bank Manual Vol-I - Rule 75(1),(2) - PO Manual Vol-VI Part-III No. 63,68(3) - Disciplinary proceedings - Minor penalty of recovery from pay - Subsidiary offender in fraud case - Applicant held responsible for negligence in not monitoring excess cash and passbooks at branch office, enabling fraud - No request for departmental enquiry made by applicant - Discretionary power of disciplinary authority to dispense with regular enquiry upheld if not arbitrary - However, penalty of recovery requires establishing specific loss caused by lapses, realistic assessment of contributory negligence, and careful drafting of charge sheet to link negligence to loss - Absent such assessment and specific quantification of loss attributable to applicant, orders quashed - Matter remitted for fresh proceedings. (Paras 7, 9-12, 13-18, 20)

(B) Natural justice - Minor penalty cases - Even where employee denies charges, authority has discretion to forego regular enquiry for valid reasons recorded - But opportunity to submit representation mandatory - Failure to request enquiry precludes challenge on that ground alone. (Paras 8-12)

(C) Appellate order - Must examine procedural fairness, issues raised in appeal - Cryptic order without such examination unsustainable. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:
Postal Assistant charged with negligence during 2016-2021 for not calling passbooks for interest posting, noting non-receipt in error book, monitoring excess branch office cash balances on specific dates, and placing matters before supervisor, enabling fraud of over Rs.9 lakhs (detected) at branch office. Memorandum proposed action under Rule 16 CCS (CCA) Rules; representation submitted; minor penalty of recovery of Rs.4,80,000 in instalments imposed without enquiry; appeal reduced amount to Rs.3,00,000; challenge on grounds of no enquiry, misplaced responsibility, non-assessment of specific loss.

Findings of Court:
Rules cited do not assign verification duties to postal assistant; responsibility lies with postmaster. No specific executive instructions on record. Charge sheet and orders fail to quantify loss directly caused by applicant's lapses or assess contributory negligence as per directions. Non-compliance with instructions on recovery penalties.

Issues: Whether imposition of recovery penalty valid without departmental enquiry, proper attribution of responsibility under manuals, specific linkage of negligence to quantified loss, and adequate appellate scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery penalty in fraud cases against subsidiary offenders requires proof of direct causal link between specific lapses and pecuniary loss, realistic negligence assessment considering extenuating circumstances; charge sheet must indicate loss caused; discretionary non-holding of enquiry valid absent request and arbitrariness, but procedural instructions mandatory.

Result: Disciplinary and appellate orders quashed and set aside; matter remitted to disciplinary authority for fresh proceedings. Original application disposed of. No costs. (Para 21)

Table of Content
1. summary of disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed. (Para 1 , 2)

Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member.

1. This matter is taken up by the Single Bench for disposal in a1c0c/o0r9d/a2n0c2e 1 wiistshu etdh e unodrdeer r Soufb -Stheect ioHno n’(b6l)e oCfh aiSremctaino,n C5A T ofd attehde Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and since no complicated question of law is involved.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“a) To set aside and quash impugned Memorandum No. F1-1/G/12/2019/Disc case (R.K. Mandal) dated 07.11.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Coochbehar Division.

b) To set aside and quash impugned Disciplinary Order No. F1-1/G/12/2019/Disc case (R.K. Mandal) dated 05/07.07.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Coochbehar Division.

c) To direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the salary of the applicant.

d) Any other order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.

e) An order directing quash and set aside of the Appellate Order dated 22-04-2024 by Director of Postal Services for PMG, North Bengal Division signed on 30-04-2024”.

Facts of the Case.

3.1 Memorandum dated 07/11/2022 was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division to the applicant informing him that it was proposed to take action against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annexure-A/1). The applicant was also informed, vide the said memorandum, that he could submit a representation against the said proposal.

3.2 In response to the aforesaid memorandum, the applicant had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division vide his letter dated 23/11/2022.

3.3 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division, vide order dated 05/07/ 2023 (Annexure-A/3) had imposed the penalty of “Recovery of the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- only in 40 equal installments, i.e, Rs. 132.4,0 00T hpeerre mafotnerth, frtohme haisp ppaliyc.a”nt had submitted an appeal dated 09/08/2023 to the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid order dated

05/07/2023 of the Disciplinary Authority dated 05/07/2023.

3.5 The Director of Postal Services being the Appellate Authority, vide his order dated 22/04/2024 (Annexure RJ-1) reduced the penalty imposed upon the applicant by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division vide order dated 05/04/2023 upon the applicant from - only in 40 equal installments, i.e, Rs.

“Recovery of amount of Rs. 4,80,000/ - 12,000 per month from his pay t o “Recovery of amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ o4n. ly wIi thh athvee sahmeaer idn sttahlel mLeenatsr”n.ed Counsel for both sides and have considered the material on record.

Submissions.

5. At hearing, the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the applicant are summarized below:-

5.1 At the material point of time, the applicant was posted as Postal Assistant at Mathurabagan (SO. As per Rule 75(1) of PoSB Manual (Vol-1), the Sub-Post Master was responsible for checking the BO daily A/c and for The applicant, being a Postal rAesmsiostvaanl t,o wf aesx cneosts recsapsho nfsriobmle atth ea llB fOor’s .t he irregular retention of excess cash at Shalkumarhat, BO on 02/10/2019, 16/10/2019 and 05/09/2019 as alleged by the Disciplinary authority.

5.2 As per Rule 75 (1) of the PoSB manual, verification of the balance of the account standing at the Branch Post Office is the responsibility of the Branch Post Master/Sub-Post-Master and the applicant cannot be held responsible for the same.

5.3 The Disciplinary Authority ought to have conducted a Departmental Enquiry in order to establish the charges framed against him. Learned COoKu nBsheal rrealdiewda uj pvosn Uthnei ojund gomf eInntd oiaf th&e OHtohne’brlse, A2p0e0x2 C oinu rstu inp ptohret coasf eh ois contention in this regard.

5.4 Learned Counsel referred to the instructions of the Director General of Postal Services

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 703

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAnindo Majumdar, Administrative MemberRanajit Mondal – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A./350/1683/2023

Recovery penalty against subsidiary offender in fraud requires specific proof of loss caused by lapses, realistic contributory negligence assessment, and compliant charge sheet; absent these, orders quashed despite valid procedural discretion on enquiry.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Ranajit Mondal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./350/1683/2023