Surendra Nath Dubey vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present Original Application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that while the applicant was posted as Sub Postmaster at Chandiya Post Office, a preliminary inquiry was initiated regarding alleged irregularities relating to manual posting in SAP under different heads of POSB GL during the period from 03.07.2020 to 04.07.2022. The applicant submitted his reply to the preliminary inquiry stating, that the alleged discrepancies had occurred due to lack of adequate knowledge regarding working on the SAP software. Subsequently, a major penalty charge-sheet dated 02.03.2023 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued against the applicant alleging misappropriation of Government money during his tenure as Sub Postmaster, Chandiya Post Office. Thereafter, on 07.03.2023, the applicant deposited an amount of Rs.7,89,028/-. The applicant also submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and asserted that the alleged discrepancies had occurred due to lack of proper knowledge of the SAP software. During the pendency of the disciplinary inquiry, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023. Subsequently, claiming that the actual Government loss was only Rs.6,89,028/- and that he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in excess, the applicant submitted representations dated 05.02.2024, 04.07.2024 and 18.08.2024 seeking refund of the alleged excess amount. Since the representations were not decided, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.964/2024, which was disposed of on 29.08.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance with the said order, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 rejecting the claim of the applicant, giving rise to the present Original Application.

The respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit opposing the Original Application. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant that he has deposited any amount in excess of the actual Government loss. It has been stated that the amount deposited by the applicant is connected with the financial irregularities detected during his tenure as Sub Postmaster and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are still pending. It is further the case of the respondents that the claim of the applicant was duly considered in compliance with the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.964/2024 and, after consideration of the relevant facts and records, the representation of the applicant was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 05.12.2024. The respondents have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and non-speaking. It is contended that although the respondents mentioned the alleged Government loss as Rs.7,89,028/- in the charge-sheet dated 02.03.2023, according to the applicant's calculation, the actual loss comes to Rs.6,89,028/- and, therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in excess by him on 07.03.2023 under pressure of the departmental authorities. The applicant had also submitted his reply to the charge-sheet explaining that the alleged discrepancies occurred due to lack of adequate knowledge of SAP software. It is further submitted that the applicant retired on 31.05.2023 while the disciplinary proceedings were pending and that certain retiral benefits have also not been paid to him. After claiming that the excess amount had been deposited, the applicant submitted representations dated 05.02.2024, 04.07.2024 and 18.08.2024 seeking refund of Rs.1,00,000/-. As the representations were not decided, he approached this Tribunal in OA No.964/2024, which was disposed of on 29.08.2024 directing the respondents to decide the representations by a reasoned and speaking order. It is argued that the impugned order passed thereafter failed to properly consider the applicant's specific contention regarding the alleged excess deposit and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel accordingly prays for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.03.2023 till the date of actual payment.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the applicant is misconceived and has rightly been rejected by the competent authority. It is submitted that the amount deposited by the applicant relates to the financial irregularities which are the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings, which have not yet attained finality. Therefore, the actual Government loss and the applicant’s final liability can be determined only after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and consideration of the Inquiry Officer’s findings by the competent authority. The applicant cannot, on the basis of his own calculation of the figures mentioned in the charge-sheet, claim that Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in excess. It is further submitted that the earlier order passed in OA No.964/2024 only directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s representations by a reasoned and speaking order, which has duly been complied with by passing the impugned order dated 05.12.2024. The issue Central Administrative Tribunal^{of retiral dues is separate and cannot furnish a basis for refund of the amount} claimed. Hence, the present claim being premature and devoid of merit, the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire record.

The controversy involved in the present Original Application is narrow. The applicant claims that out of Rs.7,89,028/- deposited by him on 07.03.2023, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in excess of the actual Government loss. The foundation of the said claim is the applicant's own calculation that the actual loss comes to Rs.6,89,028/-.

Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in respect of the alleged financial irregularities are still pending and have not yet attained finality. The allegations forming the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings are directly related to the alleged financial loss to the Government. The final extent of the loss, if any, and the liability of the applicant in respect thereof are matters which are required to be determined on the basis of the evidence and material considered in the disciplinary proceedings. At this stage, the Tribunal cannot proceed on the assumption that the calculation made by the applicant is correct and that the actual Government loss is only Rs.6,89,028/-. The applicant has not brought on record any final inquiry report, final finding of the competent authority or any other conclusive determination showing that the actual Government loss has finally been assessed at Rs.6,89,028/-. Equally, in the absence of conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be finally determined whether the amount of Rs.7,89,028/- deposited by the applicant is in excess of, equal to, or even less than the amount which may ultimately be found payable or recoverable from him. Thus, the very basis on which the applicant seeks refund of Rs.1,00,000/- is presently uncertain and has not attained finality. Whether the applicant has deposited an amount in excess of the actual Government loss or whether the amount deposited by him is less than or equal to the amount ultimately found recoverable can only be determined after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, submission of the inquiry report and passing of an appropriate final order by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules. The charge-sheet only contains allegations and particulars forming the basis of the disciplinary proceedings. The same cannot, by itself, be treated as a final and conclusive determination of the loss or the financial liability of the applicant.

The submission of the applicant that the amount was deposited under pressure also does not advance his case for grant of the relief presently claimed. Even assuming that the amount was deposited during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the question whether the applicant is entitled to refund of any part thereof would necessarily depend upon the final outcome of those proceedings and the ultimate determination of his liability. So far as the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.964/2024 is concerned, the said order only directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The earlier order did not adjudicate the merits of the claim of the applicant for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- and did not hold that the applicant had deposited the said amount in excess. The respondents thereafter considered the claim of the applicant and passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2024. Merely because the applicant is dissatisfied with the conclusion reached by the respondents does not furnish a ground for this Tribunal to direct refund of an amount when the final liability itself remains undetermined.

Hence for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the present Original Application, insofar as it seeks a direction for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest, is premature. Until the disciplinary proceedings attain finality and the actual financial loss and liability of the applicant are conclusively determined, no enforceable right accrues to the applicant to claim that the amount deposited by him is in excess of the actual Government loss. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 at this stage. However, it is clarified that after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and final determination of the liability of the applicant, it shall be open to the applicant to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law in respect of any amount, if found refundable or otherwise payable to him. Consequently, the Original Application is Central Administrative Tribunal^{dismissed, with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs.}

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.