Mahesh Autar vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

Heard Shri V.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

The facts of the case as disclosed in the O.A. are that the applicant was posted as Assistant Post Master Head Quarter Rampur. During his service, the applicant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with the allegation that when he was posted as Assistant Dakpal Moradabad, District - Moradabad, some Kisan Vikas Patra were stolen from his security which were re-encashed at Sub Post Office 23 Bn.P.A.C. Moradabad and Sub Post Office Shahabad leading to a loss of Rs.3,49,500/- to the Department and a charge sheet was submitted by the concerned authority Moradabad Division, District Moradabad. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant by Respondent No.2 along with the copy of the charge sheet to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply before the authority concerned. A suspension order was passed against the applicant against which he approached the higher authority. Vide report dated 27.01.2001 submitted by the SSPO, it was declared that the act of the applicant which led to the loss to the Department was not done deliberately, thus, his integrity and dedication cannot be doubted and exonerating him of the charges, the applicant’s suspension was ordered to be recalled. On 31.07.2001, the applicant retired from his services. Nearly nine years after the applicant’s retirement, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office Moradabad passed a recovery order dated 13.12.2010 against him which has been impugned in this O.A. The order was sent to the concerned Tehsildar, Amroha who issued recovery citation against the applicant on 24.12.2010. The applicant also sent an application dated 05.01.2011 to the concerned authority with his grievances against the order dated 13.12.2010 but no heed has been paid to it.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 has been passed without any opportunity of hearing and without considering the relevant fact and circumstances of the case. He states that no recovery order could have been legally passed against the applicant after nine years of retirement from the service especially when vide order dated 27.01.2001 the applicant has been exonerated of the charges leveled by the same authority which passed the recovery order. Thus, prayer was made to allow the original application quashing the impugned recovery order.

Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and stated that while working at the Head Post Office Moradabad from December 1998 to February 1999 as Assistant Post Master, the applicant committed a grave carelessness whereby five Kisan Vikas Patra value of Rs. 50,000/- each had been stolen from his security and the above stolen Kisan Vikas Patras were re-encashed at Sub Post Office 23 Bn. P.A.C. Moradabad and Sub Post Office Shahabad which led to a loss of Rs.4,05,550/- to the Department. Part amount has already been recovered from the other co-accused and remaining amount of Rs.2,13,000/- is liable to be recovered from the applicant. He also states that before fixing liabilities upon the applicant a full fledged inquiry under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was convened and on inquiry it has been established that the applicant was solely responsible for safety and security of the stolen Kisan Vikas Patra and he was guilty of carelessness resulting in loss to the department. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant was not awarded any major punishment taking into account the fag end of his service career which would have affected the retiral dues to the applicant and pension, however, it does not mean that recovery cannot be ordered against the applicant to help the department come out of the loss caused.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the entire record.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that vide the SSPO’s report dated 27.01.2001, the applicant has been exonerated of the charges leveled against him and he retired on 31.07.2001 during which time no recovery was pending against him but after nine years the concerned authority i.e. the SSPO Moradabad passed the impugned recovery order dated 13.12.2010 against the applicant. The respondents contend that the applicant has been held guilty of grave carelessness causing a loss of an amount of Rs.4,05,550/- to the Department and if the applicant was not awarded any major punishment it was only taking into account the fag end of his service career which would have affected the retiral dues of the applicant and his pension but the department can recover the amount from the employee.

The report dated 27.07.2001 (Annexed as Annexure No.2 of the OA) submitted by the Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Moradabad, reveals that the Disciplinary Authority exonerated the applicant observing that as the applicant is in the last stage of his service period, any punishment that adversely affects his superannuation would be unjust and also because he is guilty of mere irregularities it would not be in the interest of justice to award him any major punishment and any other minor punishment would be ineffective at this stage.

When the respondents had been benevolent to the extent of taking into account the fag end of the applicant’s service and not imposing any punishment on him after conclusion of inquiry which would adversely affect his pension and retiral dues, it makes little sense to have passed a recovery order against him after a lapse of nine years of his retirement. Also, such an order after such a duration would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the applicant. Thus, in view of the above discussions and deliberations, the O.A. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 is hereby quashed. All Associated M.A.s also stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.