In disciplinary and recovery proceedings, the court must ensure principles of natural justice are followed and that responsibility is apportioned accurately, considering whether the loss was exacerbated by the negligence or decisions of supervising authorities after the initial error was detected.

These applications having been heard on 20th February, 2026 the Tribunal on 24th March 2026 delivered the following :

O R D E R

HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Since the facts involved in both these O.As are similar and the applicants in both the O.A are aggrieved by the same orders dated 07.02.2022 and 04.04.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent which are impugned in these O.As, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Briefly the facts are as under – the applicants are working as Postal Assistant, Alathur MBR Head Office and Sub Post Master, Erimayur under the 3rd respondent. They had entered into the service as Postal Assistants at Puthucode S.O in the year 2007 and at Alathur HO in the year 1997. Thereafter they were transferred to Alathur MBR HPO. While working at Alathur on 13.09.2010 a retired defence personnel named Shri.Sasindran approached the Postmaster for opening an SCSS account for depositing his retirement benefits. Thereafter the Postmaster had handed over the POSB Manual Vol.III and directed the applicants to refer Rule 2(d)(ii) of the Rules for opening his account. It is submitted that during 2014 annual inspection at Alathur MBR HPO, an objection was raised by Accounts Officer, ICO (SB) that Shri.Sasindran had opened the account in contravention of rules as he had failed to open the SCSS account within the prescribed one month period from the date of receipt of the retirement benefits. Due to the same no interest was paid for this account since 01.04.2015.

3. Thereafter Shri.Sasindran approached the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Palakkad as CC No.24/2017 and vide Annexure A-5 order dated 20.10.2017 allowed the complaint by directing the respondents 3 and 4 to pay amount of Rs.1500000/- remaining as fixed deposit in his name along with interest at 9% per annum from 01.04.2015 till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same respondents 3 and 4 filed an Appeal No.842/2017 before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and vide Annexure A-6 judgment dated 18.11.2021 the Commission dismissed the aforesaid appeal.

4. The 3rd respondents had issued Annexure A-1 Annexure A-2 orders directing the applicants to credit an amount of Rs.305564/- being share of the loss suffered by the department under GL 8844601520. The applicants submitted Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-8 representations before the 2nd and 3rd respondents challenging Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2, the same has not been considered till date.

5. As per Rule 17 of the POSB General Rules, 1981 , once it is noticed that the SCSS account is irregularly opened, 4th respondent shall immediately close the account and refund the amount. However, when the irregular opening of the SCSS account was noticed, the 4th respondent instead of closing and refunding the amount, reported irregular opening of account to the 3rd respondent on 21.02.2015 and 3rd respondent recommended the case for relaxation to the 2nd respondent on 06.04.2015. The 2nd respondent thereafter referred the matter to the 5th respondent who again referred the matter to the Postal Directorate, New Delhi which again referred the matter to the Union Finance Ministry on 24.08.2015. Thereafter reminders were sent on 26.05.2015 and 03.11.2016. The above matter was under active consideration of Union Ministry of Finance. Thereafter the Ministry of Finance had rejected the case by Annexure A-4 order. It is clear from Annexure A-2 order of the 3rd respondent and Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 orders that the 4th respondent even renewed th