K V Mathew vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The applicant, after demitting the office of Post Master HSG I of Muvattupuzha HPO, on attainment of superannuation, had submitted Annexure A1 claim for Travelling Allowance for travel to his permanent place of residence. The premise was that he was permanently residing at Muthalakodom which was stated to be 23 kms away from Muvatupuzha Head Post Office. According to the applicant, he had taken on rent a single room accommodation at Muvattupuzha attached to the house of one M.S. Balan on payment of rent. The claim was rejected by the 5^th respondent, the Senior Superintendent of Posts, Aluva Division, by Annexure A6 order, relying on Annexure A5 communication of the 6^th respondent, Inspector of Posts, Muvattupuzha Sub Division. His appeal to the PMG, Central Region, was dismissed by Annexure A11. Aggrieved, he has approached this Tribunal challenging Annexure A6 and the consequential orders.

The respondents rely on Annexure R5(a), communication issued by the authority on a premise that on earlier occasions, without due verification some claims were sanctioned. They also set up Annexure R5(b) representation submitted by the applicant on 01.10.2012 whereunder he had admitted that he was staying at Muthalakodom. They also rely on another document which is Annexure R5(c) in which he claimed for Earned Leave on 12.05.2014.

We find from the records that, on receipt of the Travelling claim, a statement of Balan was got recorded by the Muvattupuzha office. In his statement, Balan had admitted that the applicant had resided in a room attached to his house till 2015. He admitted that no rent agreement was executed. He also stated that telephone bill, gas connection bill and water bill were not available. Annexure A3 is the report of the Mail Overseer who recorded the statement of said Balan. Based on Annexure A3, 6^th respondent gave Annexure A5 report to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. It was stated that though Balan gave a statement, the documents mentioned in Annexure R5(a) have not been produced. Relying on Annexure A5, Annexure A6 order was issued, by the 5^th respondent.

We find that the Annexure A6 order is not sustainable for various reasons. Firstly, the version of Balan has not been disbelieved. Secondly, the purpose of Annexure R5(a) is only that after due inquiry and on the basis of reliable materials, the claim should be allowed. The documents mentioned therein are only illustrative in nature. Blindly believing that the three documents mentioned in Annexure R5(a) are sacrosanct and that they alone shall be accepted, Annexure A5 was issued. Thirdly, if the respondents were not satisfied with the claim submitted, or had entertained any doubt regarding his place of residence at the time of demitting the office, the primary responsibility vested with the authority, to call upon the applicant to substantiate his claim by reliable materials, which need not be exclusively the documents mentioned in Annexure R5(a). They are only illustrative in nature and not only the documents to establish his residence.

Having regard to the fact that the claim was rejected without following the due procedure, we are inclined to set aside Annexure A6. The procedure adopted was contrary to the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside Annexure A6 and consequently Annexures A5, Annexures A11 and A12.

We direct the competent authority among the respondents to give notice to the applicant to establish his claim of residence at the Muvatupuzha. The applicant may produce reliable documents, if available, with him and if not, by filing an affidavit affirming the facts. The competent authority shall apply the mind, consider the above materials along with statement of Balan and pass appropriate order. The entire process shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The O.A is allowed to the above extent. No costs.