Manohar Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne (J):

Ld Counsel for both the parties are present.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

Ld Counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division (Disciplinary Authority) vide Order dtd. 20.12.2021 dismissed the applicant from service alleging his involvement in the fraud case to the tune of Rs. 2,20,92,766/- (Rupees two crores twenty lakhs ninety-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-six only) in Chamurchi SO under Jalpaiguri Division. Challenging the same the applicant preferred an appeal dtd. 07.02.2022 before the Appellate Authority. However, the Postmaster General, North Bengal Region, Siliguri- 734001 (Appellate Authority), vide Order dtd. 18.04.2024 upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Challenging the same the applicant has filed the instant OA.

Ld Counsel for the applicant further submits that the alleged period when the said fraud was committed in Chamurchi SO the applicant worked there for some time only and not for the entire period. The applicant also made a written complaint vide speed post receipt dtd. 26.04.2018 before the competent authority with regard to the said fraud during that period. However, at the end the applicant had been made a scapegoat and had been imposed a punishment of dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority which had further been upheld by the Appellate Authority who are not even the competent authority to issue such punishment upon the applicant.

On the other hand Ld Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes to the relief(s) sought for by the applicant in the OA and contends that the applicant along with some others was very much involved in the said fraud to the tune of Rs. 2,20,92,766/- (Rupees two crores twenty lakhs ninety-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-six only) in Chamurchi SO under Jalpaiguri Division. For the said misconduct the Department has already lodged an FIR and criminal case in this regard is sub judice before the Trial Court. She submits that a detailed reply in this regard has been filed by the respondents.

Ld Counsel for the applicant submits that refuting the averments made by the respondents in their reply, the applicant also has filed a rejoinder.

We have heard both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

We are of the view that the applicant has already attained the age of superannuation by now. A detailed inquiry has been conducted and the applicant has been given full opportunity to participate in the same to prove his innocence and thereafter only the Disciplinary Authority has passed his order which has further been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The applicant was free to raise all these issue earlier, however, it seems that it is afterthought as guided by his counsel. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. A criminal case against the applicant is also pending before the Trial Court. At this juncture when the applicant has attained the age of superannuation there is no question of his reinstatement in service. As far as his retiral benefit is concerned, if the applicant is acquitted from the said criminal case he may avail the remedy available under law by approaching to the competent authority among the respondents.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No cost.