WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 1 of 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No 3800/2011 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. VERSUS Shri R.C. Gaur …..Respondent Through Writ Petition (Civil) No 3801/2011 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. VERSUS Babu Lal …..Respondent Through Writ Petition (Civil) No 3802/2011 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. VERSUS Ravindra Kumar …..Respondent Through WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 2 of 7 Writ Petition (Civil) No 3803/2011 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Through Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates. VERSUS Shri Yogender Singh …..Respondent Through CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER % 30.05.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J. These four writ petitions arise from a common order dated 27th August, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short), partly allowing OAs filed by the respondents and deleting the penalty of recovery of loss. The tribunal has, however, upheld the punishment of withholding of increments by applying the doctrine of severability. 2. The respondents are working in the Department of Posts and were awarded minor penalties under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as per details given below:- WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 3 of 7 (i) R.C. Gaur and Babu Lal were awarded punishment of recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- in 50 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,000/- p.m. from their pay and allowance. Withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect was also directed. (ii) Ravindra Kumar was awarded punishment of recovery of Rs.50,000/- in 20 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,500/- p.m. from his pay and allowance. Further he was punished with withholding of one increment for six months without cumulative effect. (iii) Yogendra Singh was awarded with punishment of recovery of Rs.40,000/- in 20 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,000/- p.m. from his pay and allowance. Punishment of withholding of one increment for six months without cumulative effect was also imposed. 3. The facts of the case are that one, P.S. Bhardwaj, Sub-Post Master, Kakore had committed fraud and is facing criminal prosecution. It is not alleged that the respondents were aware or had knowledge of the said fraud. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents were co-conspirators or have received any consideration from P.S. Bhardwaj. 4. R.C. Gaur in his defence had stated before the authorities as under:- WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 4 of 7 “1. That the case relate to S.B. Fraud committed by Sh. P.S. Bhardwaj, S.P.M., KAKORE. 2. That modus operandi of fraud is to accept money from public to invest in various saving schemes of post officers, but not to account for such amount in P.O. A/cs. 3. That in respect of whole of the fraud S.P.M. KAKORE did not informed Khurja H.O. through L.O.T., issue journals and daily accounts. 4. That Khurja H.O. is far from KAKORE S.O. approximately 40 kms away. 5. That the only source of transactions of a S.O. to be known at H.O. is daily account alone. 6. That H.O. has not occasion to make a manual visit of a S.O. for this work. Inspecting authority are there who carried out inspection/visit as well as watched personally the conduct of the S.P.M. that it is a fact known to all that P.S. Bhardwaj was not a fit person to be posted a single handed S.P.M. because of his previously, known conduct. Despite this he was found responsible for some serious anomalies by Sh. S.R. Meena A.S.P.O’s R.K. Garg A.S.P’s & Ramnath A.S.P.O.’s Khurja. Such an anomalies were brought to the notice of S.P.O.’s Bulandshahr who turned a deaf ear to and it was because that S.P.M. KAKORE leisurely proceeded in committing fraud over a period of four years. These responsible officials are at large and have been let to go scot free and we the poor people are being make to pay the piper. That the applicant was post master, Khurja who had no exclusive and direct concerned of the work of the S.P.M. KAKORE. In between P.A. and A.P.M.’s were there to exercise check over the work of the S.P.M. KAKORE directly and never was informed WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 5 of 7 of any other serupru loses activity of the S.P.M. KAKORE. Hence, obviously I have been dragged in this case, arbitrarily.” 5. Similar defence was taken by the other respondents in response to the summary procedure adopted by the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 6. However, the contentions raised by the respondents were rejected and punishment was imposed upon them as stated above. Tribunal by the impugned order has set aside the punishment of penalty of recovery of the loss. The penalty of withholding of increment has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once there is a loss and the misconduct is proved, penalty of recovery is to follow and is mandatory. It is submitted that there were violations of guidelines and instructions issued with regard to distribution of work etc. It is submitted that in case these guidelines and instructions had been followed, the fraud would have been detected earlier and the disciplinary action would have been taken against P.S. Bhardwaj and probably they would not have suffered the loss. 7. The Tribunal has quashed the penalty of recovery of loss recording as under:- WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 6 of 7 “The Tribunal had taken due note of the fact that none of the applicants had been charged with misappropriating any amount nor an allegation of their integrity being doubtful had been leveled. It was also noted by the Tribunal that there had been no allegation at all against any of the applicants about being co-conspirator in the misappropriated amount. The fact of there not having been any detailed inquiry as to in what manner the lack of vigilance in their duties and responsibilities could have been construed to hold them responsible for one fraud had also been taken into consideration. While relying on several decisions by the other Benches of the Tribunal, the view had been taken that as none of the applicants had been charged with misappropriating any amount or allegations of doubtful integrity had been leveled against them, the order of recovery of loss without a detailed inquiry could not be held as sustainable.” 8. It is accepted that the respondents were not involved in the said fraud and are not co-conspirators. It is also accepted they were not aware of the fraud committed by P.S. Bhardwaj. They are not facing any prosecution. There is no direct link or inter-connection between the loss committed by P.S. Bhardwaj and the conduct of the respondents. The authorities after examining the allegations and the nature of misconduct and non-compliance made by the respondents, had imposed minor penalty of stoppage of increments for different periods. The petitioners did not feel and regard that it is a fit case for imposition of a major penalty. The respondents had also given their explanation and have explained that they were not WPC 3800-3803/2010 Page 7 of 7 responsible or parties to of the fraud committed by P.S. Bhardwaj. In the present case only an oral enquiry has been held and the procedure under Rule 16 has been followed. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed in limine. However, the petitioners are granted two months’ further time to comply with the directions of the Tribunal for refund of the amount recovered. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE May 30, 2011 Kkb