Union Of India v. A.Gunasekaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Writ Petition No.1499 of 2016 Union of India rep. by Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem East Division, Salem - 636 001.
... Petitioner Vs.
A.Gunasekaran ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the order dated 04.12.2014 made in O.A.No.919 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Balasubramanian
O R D E R
(Order of the Court made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.) Challenging the order dated 04.12.2014 made in O.A.No.919 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and seeking to quash the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.
It is alleged that the respondent viz. A. Gunasekaran, while working as a P.A. (officiating as Supervisor) at SBCO, Salem HO, failed to check the omissions found in acquittance portion of SB-7A vouchers pertaining to 12 MIS accounts, which were fraudulently closed by one T.M.Santhanam, who was working as Sub Post Master at Kootathupatti Sub Post Office and the misappropriated amount comes to Rs.5,82,120/-. It is further alleged that he failed to carry out checks as per procedure laid in 5(c) SB Order No.2/2008, dated 04.02.2008 and its corrigendum dated 12.02.2008 and that he also failed to carry out the
prescribed 5% check over the checks carried out by the then PA, SBCO, Salem HO in vouchers as expected of him, vide Rule 15(e) of Postal Manual SB Control of Post Office Small Savings Schemes, A.N.Dureja-Part IV. That apart, the said T.M.Santhanam had committed multiple frauds to the tune of Rs.16,18,487/- 4.
The main contention of the petitioner/Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem East Division is that had the respondent/Gunasekaran done his duty without negligence, the misappropriation perpetuated by the delinquent T.M.Santhanam would have been prevented. By invoking the conduct Rules applicable to the Postal Department, the respondent/Gunasekaran was charged for the offence committed in the Koottathupatti fraud case and a sum of Rs.3,96,009/- was fixed on him as contributory negligence.
5.
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2014 made in F14/IV/2011-12 by the petitioner herein, the respondent/Gunasekaran filed O.A.No.919/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since the amount of contributory negligence of a sum of Rs.3,96,009/- fastened on the respondent was not remitted, the petitioner invoked the provision under Rule 14, as the respondent was to attain superannuation on 30.06.2014, and issued him a Memo vide F1/4/IV/2011-2/2, dated 27.06.2014. Challenging the same, the respondent/Gunasekaran filed O.A.No.1176/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
6.
The Central Administrative Tribunal took up both the applications in O.A.No.919/2014 and O.A.No.1176/2014 together and passed a common order dated 04.12.2014, directing the Postal Department to disburse all the remaining retirement service benefits to the applicant/Gunasekaran, including pension, as per the provisions, except the disputed amount of Rs.3,96,009/- and further to conclude the entire proceedings within a stipulated time. For better understanding, relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:
"9.
On perusal of the records and from the narration of the facts, it is seen that the applicant retired on 30.06.2014 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him is under process and not yet reached its finality.
It is also seen that the respondents have retained the amount regarding leave encashment, commutation of pension and gratuity.
10.
When the matter is taken up for
hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant has retired on 30.06.2014, direction may be given to the respondents that except the disputed amount of Rs.3,96,009/-, to disburse all the retirement service benefits to the applicant, including pension and further to conclude the entire proceedings, within a time frame.
11.
For the aforesaid reasons, we also feel it appropriate to issue direction to the respondents to disburse all the remaining retirement service benefits to the applicant, including pension, as per the provisions, except the disputed amount of Rs.3,96,009/-, and further to conclude the entire proceedings within a stipulated time.
12.
Accordingly, we direct the respondents to conclude the entire disciplinary proceedings and to pass final orders, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant is also directed to co-operate with the Inquiry Proceedings for earlier finalisation and disposal of the entire proceedings. Further, the respondents are directed to retain only the disputed amount of Rs.3,96,009/-, till the disposal of the above said disciplinary proceedings and to disburse all the remaining retirement service benefits to the applicant, including pension, as per the provisions, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7.
Seeking to quash the said order dated 04.12.2014 in O.A.No.1176/2014, the Union of India represented by the Post Master General and Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem East Division, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.26811 of 2015, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition by an order dated 27.08.2015, held as under: "19. Going through the material on record with reference to the provisions stated supra, we do not find that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench, has committed any gross error in directing the Writ Petitioners, to disburse all other retirement benefits to the respondent and to continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and to retain the disputed amount of Rs.3,96,009/- till the disposal of the same.
For the reasons stated supra, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed."
8.
On a perusal of the material documents, it is seen that the relief sought by the respondent/Gunasekaran in both the Original Applications has not been granted in toto. Though the respondent/Gunasekaran retired on 30.06.2014, disciplinary proceedings initiated against him has not yet reached its finality. The petitioner herein has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/Gunasekaran for his contributory negligence and has fixed a sum of Rs.3,96,009/- as his proportionate share of defrauded amount. While so, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents therein to disburse all the retirement service benefits to the applicant/Gunasekaran, including pension, except the disputed amount of Rs.
3,96,000/- with a further direction to conclude the entire proceedings within a time frame, will, in no way affect the petitioner herein, as they have already apportioned the respondent's share of the amount defrauded. In our view, the Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order on merits, thereby protecting the interests of the petitioner/Postal Department. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, if there are no legal impediments, it is open to the petitioner/Union of India to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/Gunasekaran, if not initiated as on date, as expeditiously as possible, without adjourning the proceedings beyond two working days, at any point of time.
No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.1278 and 1279 of 2016 are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintend of Post Office, Union of India, Salem East Division, Salem 636 001.
2.The Chairman, Central Administration tribunal, Chennai Bench.
+1cc to M/S.V.Balasubramanian, Advocate Sr.7071 W.P.No.1499 of 2016 rsi(CO) srg(27/02/2016)