AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
i.Letter No. D3/PLI/Incentive/2012 dated at Patna the 27.06.2017 issued by Sr. Superintendent, RMS PT-Division, Patna as contained in Annexure A-1, may be quashed and set aside whereby it has been observed erroneously that excess payment towards Incentive was paid applicant at relevant time during the years 2011-2016 and further it has irregularly been ordered to recover the alleged excess amount, amounting to Rs. 340460.
ii.The deducted amount of incentive of applicant amounting to Rs. 88,200 & Rs. 24,300 may be directed to be refunded alongwith admissible interest thereupon.
iii.Any other relief/reliefs, the applicant is entitled and which may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.
The brief facts of the case, as per the instant O.A., are discussed and delineated as follows:
The applicant is an employee of Department of Posts employed as Section Supervisor in Accounts Section of Office of Chief Postmaster General Bihar Circle Patna. He is aggrieved by irregular action of respondent authority in assessing alleged excess payment towards incentive paid to applicant at relevant time during the years 2011-2016 and recovery thereof amounting to Rs. 3,40,460, conveyed to applicant vide letter No. D3/PLI / Incentive/2012 Dated at Patna the 27-06-2017 issued by Sr. Superintendent RMS PT Division, Patna. [Annexure-A/1]
The applicant while working in Postal Life Insurance (PLI) Patna Section has been paid incentives, after its approval by the competent authority. (Annexure A-2).
Besides several other employees were also there in PLI Section on deputation at the relevant time 2011-2016 and all of them were paid their incentives after bills for the same were passed by the competent authority as per prevalent rules/instructions of the Department, after being approved by the competent authority.
It came to notice of applicant that one stranger namely Sri Shiv Kumar of Srikrishna Vihar Colony Anishabad, Patna made certain applications under RTI regarding payments made to applicant towards incentive and in pursuance thereof, without putting the applicant even to a show cause notice, irregular action of respondent authority has been made in assessing alleged excess payment towards incentive paid to applicant at relevant time during the years 2011-2016 and recovery thereof amounting to Rs. 3,40,460 has been conveyed to applicant vide impugned letter, as at Annexure - A/1.
The applicant was issued letter dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure A-3) by the Sr. Superintendent, RMS PT Division, Patna wherein it was observed that the incentive paid to him during 2011-2012 to 2015-2016, was alleged that the applicant has received excess payment of incentive on PLI for Rs. 2,20,029. The applicant was directed to refund excess paid amount in Government a/c within 7 days of receipt of the letter else suitable action will be taken against applicant for the recovery of the irregular paid amount of the incentive.
On 23.06.2017, the applicant submitted application before the Sr. Superintendent, RMS PT Division, Patna submitting therein all his points against the proposed action against him. (Annexure A-4)
Now, in non-consideration of submissions of applicant the impugned letter has been issued as at Annexure A/1, wherein the earlier assessed amount Rs. 2,20,,029 has further been enhanced to Rs. 3,40,460.
While issuing penal order against the applicant, in shape of Annexure A/1 it has not been appreciated by the respondent authority that Recovery is a statutory punishment within the Patna meaning of Rule-11 (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and as such the same cannot be ordered without initiating and finalizing Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
That it is relevant to submit here that the applicant has been granted Certificate of Appreciation while discharging his duties for PLI. (Annexure A-5). But being dissatisfied with the action of respondent authority he submitted application on 26-07-2017 (Annexure A-6) before the Sr. Superintendent, RMS PT Division Patna that as his financial condition was very grim his due incentives which were not paid might be deducted. The respondent authority has deducted Rs. 88,200 and again Rs. 24,300 from the incentive of applicant.
As regarding alleged excess payment, firstly the assessment made by the respondent authority has been made at the back of applicant and as such the same is not tenable. The respondent authority has further failed to appreciate that after taking into consideration various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandi Prasad Uniyal, Rafiq Mashih etc. the DoP&T,New Delhi has issued its office memorandum dated 02.03.2016. [Annexure - A/7]
In pursuance to aforementioned DoP&T, Circular the amount already paid to applicant cannot be recovered in pursuance to Paragraph 4 (i) & (iii) of O.M. of DoP&T dated 2ndMarch 2016.
The aforesaid DoP&T circular came before this Tribunal for consideration in OA No. 288 of 2017 and after considering the said OA the same was dismissed on 11.07.2017 (Annexure A-8). On 16.01.2018, in CWJC No. 12226 of 2017 the Hon’ble Patna High Court has been pleased to allow Writ Application made against the order dated 11.07.2017 passed in OA 288 of 2017 (Annexure A-9).
The respondent authority has deducted Rs. 88,200 and again Rs. 24,300 from the incentive of applicant amounting to Rs. 1,12,500/-The recovery/deduction from applicant unknown to rules & law has been ordered in a manner. Hence, the instant Application.
Per contra, the Respondents have contested the case by filing written statements in which it was stated that:
Patna 3.1 The applicant was working as PLI/RPLIdepartmental agent in RMS PT-Dn, Patna during the year 2011-2016. He was sanctioned incentive for his work as PLI Agent during the year 2011-2016 @ Rs. 25/- per 10,000/- sum assured upto 2 crore of sum assured but Sri Kumar was entitled for incentive during the year 2011-2016 @ Rs.20/- per 10,000/- sum assured for above 2 Crore of sum assured (Annexure-R/1). The excess amount of Rs. 2,20,029/- was calculated vide this office letter No.D-3/PLI/Incentive/2012 dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-R/2) and Sri Kumar was directed to refund such excess amount of Rs.2,20,029/- in Govt. Treasury within 7 days. The aforesaid excess amount of incentive was further reviewed and found that the excess amount comes to Rs.3,40,460/-instead of 2,20,029/-. Sri Kumar was directed to refund the excess paid amount of incentive Rs.3,40,460/- instead of Rs.2,20,029/- in Govt. account within 7 days of receipt of this office letter D-3/PLI/Incentive/2012 dated 27/06/2017 (Annexure-R/3). Sri Kumar accepted to refund the said amount vide his application dated 27-07-2017 (Annexure-R/4) from his due incentive. Since then, the excess paid amount of incentive is being recovered from his due incentive. The excess paid amount of incentive has not been recovered from his pay & allowances. Being aggrieved from such recovery of excess amount from his due incentive, Sri Kumar filed OA No.469/2018 before this Tribunal.
Ld. counsel for applicant has not filed any rejoinder.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusal of the material available before this Tribunal, I have considered the matter in its entirety and arrived at following conclusions:
The core matter in this Original Application revolves around the challenge raised by the applicant, an employee of the Department of Posts working as a Section Supervisor, against the assessment and recovery of alleged excess incentive payments. These payments were made to him during his tenure in the Postal Life Insurance (PLI) section between the years 2011 and 2016. The applicant contended that the recovery order that was initially assessed at Rs. 2,20,029 and later enhanced to Rs. 3,40,460, was arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the protections against recovery laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark Rafiq Mashih case, as well as the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated March 2, 2016.
Upon a comprehensive review of the entire pleadings, written statements, and the detailed notes recorded in the proceedings, several crucial factual and legal aspects emerge.
Firstly, regarding the applicant's contention that he was condemned unheard and that action was taken behind his back, the record explicitly establishes that the applicant was duly noticed while he was still in active service. He was granted a proper opportunity to submit his explanation and defend his position. Consequently, the argument raised by the applicant that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice or a total lack of show-cause notice is untenable and stands dismissed.
Secondly, the applicability of the Rafiq Mashih ratio was carefully weighed. While it is recognized that the ratio protects employees from recovery where over-payments occur without any fraud or misrepresentation on their part, the administrative records show that the applicant’s detailed representation was duly considered by the competent authorities. Furthermore, there were no specific instances of wrong calculation or arbitrary penalty established that could invalidate the departmental review. The records also indicate that the applicant's account showed an acceptance of the arrangement concerning the adjustments. He has given it in writing that whatever excess payment has been made on account of calculation of incentives for his insurance work may be recovered. Moreover, this is not a penalty that will necessitate an initiation of departmental proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules as claimed by the applicant. It is only an administrative decision after administrative review of the accounts.
Thirdly, regarding the operational status of the recovery, it is noted from the records that no adverse orders will be passed regarding the refund of the amounts already given. Moreover, actual recovery Patna proceedings had been halted following the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 24.05.2018.
Because the applicant was afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his stance while in service, the department followed due process, and the necessary administrative corrections regarding variable incentive calculations were handled without imposing arbitrary statutory penalties, the applicant's challenges lack substance.
Accordingly, the Original Application (OA) is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated, and M.A. No. 337 of 2019 (the application for vacation of the stay order dated 24.05.2018) also stands disposed of.