Jyothi B. vs Union Of India & Ors.

The Applicant in the Miscellaneous Application is the applicant in the Original Application. According to the applicant, the Original Application is filed challenging Annexure-A1 proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent causing to recover an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-from the DCRG due to her husband, who is no more. After the death of her husband, the 3^rd respondent had coerced her to deposit an amount of Rs.1,80,099/- for processing the DCRG benefits and she had reluctantly remitted the same. She was in dire need of money for settling the liabilities and remitted the amount by the hope of getting DCRG to settle her liabilities made by her husband as well as the loans pending on his death. An amount of Rs.1,80,099/- was paid not on the basis of any quantified loss or liability, but on the directions of the 3^rd respondent for processing the application for getting the DCRG benefits. Therefore, the department is liable to refund the same. Even though this aspect was mentioned in the Original Application by an inadvertent mistake, the relief could not be incorporated specifically and therefore she seeks to amend the Original Application by incorporating additional relief (ii)(A) to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,80,099/- deposited by the applicant as directed by the respondents alleging it as the contributory share on the part of her husband, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The application has been opposed by the respondents. The 3^rd respondent filed an objection contending that the O.A. was heard on 17.02.2023 and the Miscellaneous Application has been filed after reserving the O.A. for final orders disposing the O.A. A fraud was detected in Manappally North Sub Office where Radhakrishna Pillai, the late husband of the applicant was the Sub Post Master from 12.05.2014 to 15.05.2016. Thus Annexure-R1 charge sheet was filed against him on 17.08.2017, but he did not give any reply. Then the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, but unfortunately, Radhakrishna Pillai expired on 02.10.2017 before his superannuation on 30.11.2017. A detailed enquiry revealed misappropriation in 18 accounts. Thus a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was withheld from the DCRG. On calculation, actual loss of Government money with penal interest comes only to Rs.1,85,547/- and the balance amount of Rs.64,453/- can be refunded. Such an application for amendment is not permissible. The contention that an amount of Rs.1,80,099/- was remitted under coercion of the 3^rd respondent is denied. Such an allegation has not been brought by the applicant at any point of time. On 10.04.2019 the 3^rd respondent had asked the applicant to receive the DCRG after adjusting the withheld amount. But the applicant refused to accept the same. The undisputed amount was paid to the applicant on the basis of the interim order dated 15.05.2019 passed by this Tribunal. That means, she was not in dire need of money. In the O.A. there was no prayer for refund of Rs.1,80,099/-. The decision of the CAT, Jaipur Bench in O.A.362/2011 in Lalitha Devi v. Union of India and others is not on identical facts. So he sought for dismissing the application.

I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even though relief for refund of Rs.1,80,099/- was not specifically incorporated in the Original Application, he had already incorporated pleading touching the payment of the amount as directed by the 3^rd respondent for processing the application for releasing the DCRG. Therefore, non-incorporation of such a specific relief has no consequence. According to him, if the application is not allowed, that would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and miscarriage of justice. He also relied on the decision in Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports(P) Ltd and others [(2012) 5 SCC 337]. Referring to paragraph 20 of the said order quoting Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons [(2009) 10 SCC 84] he said that the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court are relevant.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has strongly opposed the application. According to him, such a last minute application for amendment is illegal. He has placed reliance on Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another [(2009) 2 SCC 409] and submitted that the application is liable to dismissed.

The applicant is the widow of late G.Radhakrishna Pillai, who was the Sub Post Master in Vadakkumthala East SO. While he was working in the said Post Office a fraud was detected. Huge amounts were allegedly misappropriated. Thus disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Radhakrishna Pillai. Before the enquiry could commence, he passed away. When the application for releasing DCRG was considered, from Annexure-A1 it is clear that the respondents withheld an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the reported amount of loss/departmental dues to be recovered and in the RD fraud case at Manappally North SO. Similarly, an amount of Rs.1,01,179/- was also due towards interest on House Building Advance availed by the deceased. The applicant has no quarrel with regard to the latter amount. The O.A. was filed for quashing Annexure-A1 to the extent of withholding Rs.2,50,000/-. The O.A. was opposed and according to the respondents, during enquiry it came out that the loss to the Government was quantified to Rs.1,85,547/- and the balance amount of Rs.64,453/- could be refunded. He denied the contention that Rs.1,80,099/- was obtained under coercion.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the applicant has now approached the Tribunal for amending the O.A. with an improved version that such an amount was obtained under coercion by the 3^rd respondent.

The O.A. was finally heard on 17.02.2023 and this application was filed when the application was reserved for passing final orders. In such a circumstance, normally such an application is not entertainable.

But two aspects prompted this Tribunal to allow the application. Firstly, despite the fact that the applicant has now improved her version on the circumstance under which Rs.1,80,099/-was paid, still it remains a fact that she had remitted such an amount as a pre-condition for processing the application for releasing the DCRG. The question whether she was compelled to make such a remittance etc. has to be considered in detail. All the same, it remains a fact that in the Original Application she had made mention about such a remittance which is admitted in the reply also. Therefore, the justifiability of making her to remit that amount has to be considered in the O.A., lest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, that may drive the applicant to move a fresh O.A. seeking refund of the same. That would result in multiplicity of proceedings which is not in public interest.

Secondly, ultimately if found that there is no justification in withholding the amount and directing her to remit so much money even in the absence of pleadings, it is within the domain of the Tribunal to mould reliefs appropriately.

It is always in the interest of justice to adjudicate the entire dispute as a whole and if the amendment is allowed, that would not cause any prejudice to the respondents but only would advance the cause of justice. On those considerations, the amendment is allowed. The amendment will be carried out within seven days. The respondents can file their additional reply within the next fifteen days.

The Miscellaneous Application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand only) to be tendered to the learned Standing Counsel within five days.

Annexure A1- A true copy of the Order No. C/09/2017 dated 30.03.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent

Annexure A2- A true copy of the gratuity sanctioning order No. POSTAL/2017/KE/24156/ dated 27/30.11.2018 issued by the office of the Director of Accounts, Kerala Circle Trivandrum.

Annexure A3- A true copy of the OM No.C-32016/07/2006-VP dated 14.11.2006 issued on behalf of the 1st Respondent.

Annexure A4- A true copy of the representation dated 24.04.2019 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd Respondent

Annexure A5- A true copy of the representation dated 24.04.2019 submitted by the Applicant to the 1st Respondent.

Annexure A6 - A true copy of O.M. F. No. 11012/7/99-Estt(A) dated 20.10.1999 issued on behalf of the Department of Personnel & Training

Annexure R1:- A true copy of the memo No F1/04/2017-2018 dated 17/08/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent

Annexure R2:- A true copy of the letter No: INV /5-2/2017 dated 26/10/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent.

Annexure R3:- A true copy of letter No: BB/47/II/86/2017-18 dated 12/07/2018 issued the 3rd respondent

Annexure R4:- A true copy of the memo No: C/02/2019 dated 28/05/2019 issued by 3rd respondent