AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) That this Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal may graciously pleased to quash the impugned recovery dated 31.10.2014 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,42,964.20/- along with charges (Annexure No. A-1 to this original application).
(ii). That this Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal may graciously pleased to direct the respondent not to take any coercive method against the applicant husband in pursuance of aforesaid impugned recovery certificate issued by respondent No.3.
(iii) That this Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal may graciously pleased to issue any order or direction, rule which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) That the cost of application be awarded in favour of the applicant”.
Through the present OA, the applicant is aggrieved against the impugned recovery certificate dated 31.10.2014 issued by the respondents for recovery and realization of Rs. 3,42,964.20/- on account of misappropriation of government money as the amount of arrears of Land Revenue due from the applicant’s husband under the provisions of “Revenue Recovery Act 1850 and Section 12 (4) Public Account Default Act” without proper inquiry and quantification of applicant’s husband liability by a legally constituted authority in accordance with the law.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s husband appointed in the respondents’ department as Sub Post Master of Sub Post Office situated at Rohana Mill. Husband of applicant died on 02.04.1014. During the service period, husband of the applicant was served upon a chargesheet dated 12.12.1984 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 regarding embezzlement of Government money. In pursuance of aforesaid chargesheet, an enquiry was initiated against the husband of applicant. On the basis of enquiry report, an order dated 22.12.1987 was passed by the disciplinary authority compulsorily retire from service against the husband of applicant. Applicant’s husband preferred an appeal against the punishment order. Appellate Authority passed an order dated 31.05.1988 whereby punishment of compulsory retirement was upheld by Appellate Authority. Husband of the applicant submitted a petition to Chairman, Postal Services Board, New Delhi against the appellate order dated 31.05.1988. the Authority concerned rejected the petition vide order dated 28.03.1989. Surprising after a lapse of thirty three years, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 31.10.2014 directed the Tehsildar, Muzaffar Nagar to recover an amount of Rs. 3,42,964.20/- from the applicant. Aggrieved against the aforesaid recovery certificate, applicant preferred present original application.
We have heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that after a period of thirty three years from the date of retirement of the concerned employee, respondent No. 3 illegally and arbitrarily passed impugned order dated 31.10.2014 whereby State administration was directed to recover an amount of Rs. 3,42,964.20/- from the applicant. The act of respondents is nothing but harassment and mental agony to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that once the applicant’s husband had already undergone the punishment for the incident took place in Badahi Kalan, Post Office, then at this belated stage, without actual quantification, issuing recovery process against applicant of Rs. 3,42,964.20/- is illegal and arbitrary action. It is also argued that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order as to why impugned recovery certificate has been issued. It is next argued that recovery certificate has been issued against the applicant without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
Concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant further argued that there was no allegation or charge of misappropriation of public money against the husband of the applicant. Unless there is a direct and specific charge of misappropriation or defalcation of public money no recovery can be made from the applicant who is the widow of employee concerned. Furthermore, the applicant’s counsel submits that the settled proposition of law is that no coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act can be resorted to against the applicant who was not Government servant unless there is proper quantification of applicant’s husband liability towards the loss of public money for any negligent act. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Krishna Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and others passed in Writ A-No. 17228 of 2006 decided on 19.10.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly argued that in view of aforesaid decision, OA be allowed quashing the impugned recovery certificate and directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondents denies the claim of the applicant’s counsel submitting that the instant original application is liable to be dismissed straightway as the controversy in the instant matter pertains to the recovery of misappropriated money initiated under the Land Revenue Act which does not fall under the jurisdiction of Tribunal as the matters is falling within the scope of Public Accounts Default Act and Revenue Act which cannot be said to be a service matter. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have authority under the PAD Act, 1850 to recover any loss of defalcation of accounts committed by the public servant as land revenue. Hence, the respondents were, therefore, not required to conduct a formal disciplinary proceeding before directing the Government servant to repay such an amount.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that fraud was committed by some employees of Postal Department whereby an amount of Rs. 735724.40/- has been embezzled from the government exchequer. Applicant’s husband was one of the culprits for the aforesaid embezzlement. Chargesheet was issued against the applicant’s husband and inquiry was conducted. On the basis of enquiry report, a penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon the applicant’s husband vide order dated 22.12.1987. Against the punishment order applicant’s husband preferred an appeal, which was decided by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the husband of the applicant. No illegality or impropriety can be attached to the impugned order.
We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.
The questions of jurisdiction regarding recovery certificate issued under PAD Act was considered by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 14.3.2023 – Ram Darash Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others in OA No. 1451 of 2010. In this case, the Tribunal has observed on the point of jurisdiction as under:-
“12. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad by its order dated 19.10.2022 {Krishna Pal Singh (supra)} directed the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad to decide the case of the applicant on merits, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before him.
Further a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in its judgment dated 24.01.2002 passed in Civil Misc, Writ Petition No. 39313 of 1999 titled Surendra Nath Shukla Vs District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar and Another specifically held that recovery order issued against an employee of Government clearly comes within the definition of service matters. Thus, Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the said controversy.
If the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Surendra Nath Shukla (supra) is taken into consideration, in light of the facts and circumstances of the matter, certainly Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in the present matter. Therefore, arguments raised on behalf of the respondents that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the instant matter are not acceptable”.
Thus, in view of above observation of this Tribunal in the above cited case, we are of the view that Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in the present matter. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction has no leg to stand.
As regards the merits of the case, it is settled proposition of law that no coercive steps under the PAD Act can be resorted to against a person being a government servant unless proper quantification of his liability towards the loss of public money for any negligent act has been made. In the instant case, the liability was fixed upon the applicant who is the widow of deceased employee without following the due procedure established under law. Only punishment of compulsory retirement was passed against the husband of the applicant. Applicant is the widow of deceased employee. Nothing is brought on record that at any time before the death of husband of applicant, quantification of liability was made.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.S. Chawla ( 2005) (8) SLR (P& Hry.373) and the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in S.V.V.Satyanaranyana Murthy Vs. The Director of Accounts (Postal) A.P.Circle Hyderabad and Ors decided on 14.02.2003, have observed that without giving show cause notice to a Government employee, the order of recovery is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P Vs. Vijay Kumar Tripathi and Anr. (AIR 1995 SC 1130) has also held that statutory punishment cannot be awarded without proper disciplinary proceedings and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the official.
It is evident from the perusal of record that after the incident took place for about thirty three years, applicant who is the widow of deceased employee was served with the impugned order dated 31.10.2024 whereby she was ordered to deposit Rs.3,42,964.20/-.
In view of the above-referred judgments, we are of the view that without any proper inquiry and without even informing the applicant, the respondents have decided to recover the amount from her. Respondents did not have any power under the Public Accounts Default Act, 1850 (PAD Act, 1850) to suo-moto proceed in the matter to start recovery from a Government employee without properly quantifying the amount. It is nothing but a misuse of powers by the respondents. In the present case, the respondents have moved in a dubious manner without following the due process of law and adherence of principle of natural justice.
Considering the entire conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the respondents cannot proceed to recover an amount allegedly misappropriated by the applicant’s husband without giving any notice and without conducting an inquiry following due process of law by the applicant.
In the aforementioned background of facts and law, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.10.2014 is quashed and set aside. Respondents will, however, be at liberty to recover any loss caused to the Department by the applicant’s husband by following the due procedure in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. If any amount is still to be recovered, the same shall not be recovered. Recovery amount, if any, shall be refunded to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of the judgment. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are also disposed of.