DEEPAK KUMAR vs Postal on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, Member (Judl.) :- Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant while working as Inspector (Posts), Mahua Sub-Division, Mahua, Vaishali, was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure-A/1). The charge on applicant was that while working as SDI(P), Mahua from 28.07.2016, he inspected the Kumar Bajitpur S.O. on 29.12.2016 but did not submit the inspection report

Location:

S K JHA

[2] OA 1150 of 2019

despite issue of reminders by Divisional Office dated 16.01.2017, 02.02.2017, 24.03.2017, 06.04.2017, 01.09.2017, 11.09.2017, 28.11.2017, 22.02.2018, 24.05.2018, 11.07.2018, 18.07.2018, 24.07.2018, 20.08.2018, 14.09.2018 and 05.11.2018. The applicant failed to keep proper control over his Sub Division and, therefore, he facilitated the fraud committed by Shri Chandan Kumar, the then SPM, Kumar Bajitpur S.O., to the tune of Rs.1,59,000/- as per C.L.I and non-disclosure of difference in B.O. balance to the tune of Rs.5,32,383/- at the earlier stage. Accordingly, the enquiry was proceeded and culminated. Vide order dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure- A/2) the Disciplinary Authority/ Supdt. of Post Offices, Vaishali Division, Hajipur, passed the punishment order against the applicant and awarded punishment of recovery of Rs.3,45,000/- in twenty three equal instalments from the salary of the applicant from June 2019. Apart from that, further increment of the applicant was also directed to be withheld for three months without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the above order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Director, Postal Services(Hqrs.), Patna, on 18.07.2019 (Annexure- A/3) which was kept pending by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the applicant filed an OA, bearing no. 932 of 2019, before this Bench of the Tribunal. The OA was decided on 24.09.2019 (Annexure-A/4) with direction to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the pending appeal of the applicant within thirty days. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority considered the appeal and rejected the same vide order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-A/5). Challenging the

Location:

S K JHA

[3] OA 1150 of 2019

punishment order of Disciplinary Authority dated 14.06.2019, rejection order of Appellate Authority dated 03.12.2019 as well as memorandum of charges dated 21.12.2018 and refund of the recovered amount, the applicant preferred the present OA with the following relief:- “8(1) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to quash/set- aside the order of penalty issued by SPOS Vaishali under memo No. F2-1/2016-17/Disc-8 dated 14.06.2019 against the applicant (Annexure-A/2)

8(2) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the order of appellate authority issued under O/o CPMG Bihar Patna Memo No.-Staff/RP-09/Appeal/D.Kumar/2019 dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-A/5)

8(3) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to quash the memorandum of charges issued by SPOs Vaishali under memo No.F2-1/2016-17/Disc-8 dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure-A/1).

8(4) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to return the recovered amount to the applicant with interest.

8(5) Cost of the case may pleased be awarded to the applicant for unnecessary expenditure in litigation, mental agony and financial harassment.

8(6) Any other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

2. It has been submitted by the applicant that according to Circle Level Inquiry (for short, CLI) the outstanding loss has been shown as Rs.1,59,000/- as the consequence of fraud committed by Chandan Kumar, SPM of Kumar Bajitpur S.O, against whom an FIR has also been lodged by the Opposite Parties in Patepur Police Station u/s 420/409 of Indian Penal Code. The period of fraud has been shown as

Location:

S K JHA

[4] OA 1150 of 2019

13.11.2015 to 17.01.2017. The matter was first reported by the applicant on 17.01.2017 to SPOs Vaishali.

3. The applicant joined as SDI(P) Mahua on 28.07.2016. There were 8 sub-offices and 92 branch offices under the jurisdiction of SDI Mahua. Therefore, non-submission of inspection report within time was due to heavy work load. It is pertinent to mention that inspection reports of year 2014 and 2015 were also not submitted by the then IPO. The total outstanding amount has been shown in the CLI as Rs.1,59,000/- whereas, there were other subsidiary offenders and main offender who have been penalised lesser penalty. On the other hand the applicant has been penalised for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.3,45,000/-which is exorbitant and without any ratio. The main offender Chandan Kumar, SPM has committed the fraud of Rs.1,59,000/- and Rs.5,32,383/- has also been traced as non- disclosure in B.O. balance. Neither in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, nor in the order of Appellate Authority it has been disclosed that how the applicant got benefited from the above embezzlement/loss and how he conspired with the main accused. It has also not been shown that under what ratio the penalty of Rs.3,45,000/- has been arrived at. The SPOs Vaishali himself visited Kumar Bajitpur S.O. on 09.01.2017 and he didn’t check cash and balance of the S.O. Accordingly, he has violated the Note-I Rule 270 of P&T Manual (Vol.8). As such, he has committed negligence in performing his duties by way of not checking the cash and balance of

Location:

S K JHA

[5] OA 1150 of 2019

the S.O. The work of applicant was only to make inspection and he was not assigned the job of deposit and withdrawal of cash.

4. It has further been submitted that applicant joined as SDI(P), Mahua Sub-Division, Mahua on 28.07.2016 which was his first posting in Sub-Division. After five months he made his first visit to Kumar Bajitpur S.O. and carried its inspection on 29.12.2016. As per rule two days’ time is prescribed for inspection of a single handed S.O. accordingly, it was required to continue inspection till 30.12.2016. Apart from that, two more inspections i.e. inspection of Singhara S.O. and Adalpur B.O. were to be carried out by 31.12.2016 due to which continuation of inspection of Kumar Bajitpur S.O. was not possible. The applicant had inspected the Singhara S.O. on 30.12.2016 and Adalpur B.O. on 31.12.2016 and completed the inspection of Kumar Bajitpur S.O. in January, 2017. The reminders as shown in the charge- sheet are exorbitant as applicant had not received all of them. In the midst of inspection program on 17.01.2017 the SPM, Kumar Bajitpur S.O. eloped with more than eight lakh rupees. The applicant was intending to complete the formalities of submission of inspection report in which he had incorporated the account numbers of 15 safe SB A/c which were verified by him, but the effort of applicant became meaningless as the fraud of mis-appropriation by SPM has already been exposed. The charges in charge-memo are vague. According to law, the penalty of recovery can be awarded for loss caused by the delinquent employee to the Government by his negligence or breach of orders on his part. There may be certain lapses on the part of the

Location:

S K JHA

[6] OA 1150 of 2019

applicant for not submitting the inspection report in time, but the Disciplinary Authority cannot award the punishment of recovery of Rs.3,45,000/- without ascertaining and explaining as to how lapses of applicant has link with the embezzlement/fraud committed by the main offender consequently the loss sustained by the department. No modus operandi was disclosed in the charge-sheet. It has also not been shown as to how the applicant has facilitated the committal of fraud. In CLI it has been shown that mis-appropriation of Rs.40,000/- took place on 13.11.2015 and further mis-appropriation of Rs.5,000/- took place on 20.07.2016; both were prior to joining of applicant. It has also been shown in CLI that out of the total amount involved (Rs.10,42,958/-) (Defalcation of cash Rs.8,83,958/- + SB Fraud for Rs.1,59,000/-), Rs.8,83,958/- has been credited by the brother of Chandan Kumar on 14.03.2017 at Hajipur H.O. Thus, the loss of only Rs.1,59,000/- was established. Hence, the loss of Rs.5,32,383/- has wrongly been shown by the department. Further, the SB works of a single handed S.O is to be supervised daily by the H.O. which has not been done by the concerned person and no SB vouchers, special error book were scrutinized by the H.O. level. Accordingly, the negligence has also been attributed by the H.O. The differences in B.O. balance to the tune of Rs.5,32,383/- has not occurred in a day. The team working under the personal supervision of the SPOs Vaishali could not unfold it promptly. The applicant has been made soft target and diverted the lapses on him on the part of H.O.

Location:

S K JHA

[7] OA 1150 of 2019

5. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted their written statement and admitted that the applicant had inspected the Kumar Bajitpur S.O. but he did not submit the inspection report despite the issuance of reminders by the Divisional Office. Accordingly, he failed to keep control over his Sub-Division and consequently he facilitated the fraud committed by the SPM Shri Chandan Kumar, Kumar Bajitpur S.O. It has been found that Rs.1,59,000/- has been mis-appropriated by committing fraud and Rs.5,32,383/- by difference in B.O. balance. If the inspection report of the applicant had been filed earlier the further mis-appropriation would have been averted. The fraud as well as the mis-appropriation has been revealed by the report of the CLI. The total outstanding loss has been found to be Rs.1,59,000/- + Rs.5,32,383/-, whereas the applicant has been penalised for recovery of Rs.3,45,000/- only; rest Rs.3,46,383/- has been recovered from other subsidiary offenders. The applicant has been punished for his lapses in exercising his duties and wilfully committing violation of departmental rules/instructions. The Appellate Authority has passed the order which is well reasoned and discussed order which upheld the punishment order of the Disciplinary Authority. Despite multiple reminders no inspection report had been filed by the applicant which facilitated the SPM Chandan Kumar to commit mis-appropriation and fraud to the Government exchequer.

6. In reply to the written statement, the applicant has submitted his rejoinder in which the applicant has reiterated almost the same

Location:

S K JHA

[8] OA 1150 of 2019

fact which has been mentioned by him in the OA. In support of his case the applicant has submitted the following orders of this Bench:-

(i) OA No. 813 of 2013 (Narendra Kumar vs. UoI & Ors.); decided on 30.07.2015;

(ii) OA No. 949 of 2015 (Devanand Pandit vs. UoI & Ors.); decided on 21.05.2018;

(iii) OA No. 980 of 2018 (Mahendra Mistri vs. UoI & Ors.); decided on 18.02.2026; and

(iv) OA No. 241 of 2024 (Shanny Kumar vs. UoI & Ors.); decided on 10.04.2026.

7. We have heard the contentions of the counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

8. The detailed CLI report has been filed by the applicant at Annexure-A/6 of the OA in which the date of enquiry has been shown as 15.03.2018 and the period of fraud has been shown from 13.11.2015 to 17.01.2017. It has also been shown that on 22.12.2015 Shri Navin Kumar was I.P., Mahua who had not submitted his inspection report to the department. Thereafter, in the inspection year 2016 the applicant had inspected the Kumar Bajitpur S.O. on 29.12.2016 but he also not submitted the inspection report. It has also been mentioned that two FIRs on 07.02.2017 and 19.01.2017 have been lodged against the aforesaid fraud before the Police Station concerned.

9. It has been found that the SPM of Kumar Bajitpur S.O. named Chandan Kumar has committed fraud in SB account by manipulating amount of actual withdrawal and by making fraudulent withdrawal. Thereafter, he absconded on 17.01.2017 with office cash amounting to Rs.8,83,958/- and thereafter he did not turn for his duties. The

Location:

S K JHA

[9] OA 1150 of 2019

office was remained locked from 17.01.2017 to 22.01.2017. ASP (HQ) and IP (PG) of Vaishali Division rushed to the office on 23.01.2017 and opened the office. Thereafter, the fraud and mis-appropriation done by the SPM, Chandan Kumar, came on screen. Shri Chandan Kumar was working as SPM in the above S.O. from 14.02.2014. In the inspection it has been found that Rs.8,83,958/- was short in cash balance of the office which was taken away by Shri Chandan Kumar. The SPOs Vaishali constituted a team for enquiry on 18.01.2017. The applicant was one of them. The accounts and documents of the S.O. were scrutinized and it has been found that the balance amount was short and there were fraudulent withdrawals from SB Accounts. However, the loss of Rs.8,83,958/- credited to S.O. by brother of Chandan Kumar and the outstanding loss was found to be Rs.1,59,000/-.

10. It has also been found in the CLI that the principal offender was Chandan Kumar, the SPM of Kumar Bajitput S.O. while Shri Prem Prakash, Shri Brajendra Bahadur Singh, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh and Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh were subsidiary offenders. Apart from that, Shri Naveen Kumar and Shri Dipak Kumar (applicant) have also been found responsible for inspectorial lapses. Further, Shri Rajiv Kr. Ranjan, Manoj Kr. Pandit and Rajiv Ranjan were also found subsidiary offenders.

The departmental action was taken by the authorities against Shri Chandan Kumar, SPM as principal offender. He has been charge-sheeted and punished under Rule 14 and awarded the

Location:

S K JHA

[10] OA 1150 of 2019

punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in the pay matrix level 4 for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.12.2017; Shri Rajiv Kr. Ranjan, SPM was awarded punishment with stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect; Shri Manoj Kr. Pandit was punished with stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect; Shri Rajiv Ranjan was punished with stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect; Shri Prem Prakash was punished with stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect; Shri Brajendra Bahadur Singh was punished with reduction of one stage for six months w.e.f. 01.11.2017; Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh – Disciplinary proceeding is required to be initiated by the Divl. Head.

The CLI has reported that Rs.1,59,000/- was embezzled by way of fraud and Rs.5,32,383/- as a consequence of difference in B.O. balance.

11. The above documentary evidence which is available on record shows that the main offender was Chandan Kumar, the then SPM, Kumar Bajitpur SO. So far as the role of applicant is concerned it is shown that he has not submitted the inspection report in the first week of January 2017 although soon after his inspection i.e. 29.12.2016 the fraud has been revealed when the SPM, Chandan Kumar, absconded on 17.01.2017 by locking the sub division office which was opened by the authorities concerned on 23.01.2017. The

Location:

S K JHA

[11] OA 1150 of 2019

CLI report has also indicated the mis-appropriation as well as fraud was committed from 13.11.2015 to 17.01.2017. Admittedly, the applicant took over the charge of Kumar Bajitpur SO, Mahua on 28.07.2016. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for negligence in performing his duties as the period of commission of fraud started prior to the posting of applicant which continued till 16.01.2017. It has not been proved that the applicant has gained some monetary benefit in the mis-appropriation of Government exchequer committed by Shri Chandan Kumar.

12. So far as imposition of penalty of recovery is concerned, the general conditions are –

(i) that the loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders by a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss.

(ii) that in the case of loss caused to Government, the competent disciplinary authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the contributory negligence on the part of an officer.

(iii) that while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer, along with such lapses and loss, the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer, shall also be given due weightage.

Location:

S K JHA

[12] OA 1150 of 2019

Accordingly, the competent Disciplinary Authority should have correctly assessed the contributory negligence of applicant. The main offender and the subsidiary offenders which have been shown in the CLI Inquiry Report have been given lesser punishment in the departmental proceeding than that of the applicant. The authorities have not mentioned the ratio and have not given any calculation as how Rs.5,32,383/- has been mis-appropriated due to the acts/omission/contribution of applicant by non-submission of inspection report. It appears that the above conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority with regard to recovery of Rs.3,45,000/- is whimsical and based upon the mere wishes of the said authorities.

13. The period of mis-appropriation as well as irregularities committed has been shown from 13.11.2015. It has been shown that on 22.12.2015 one Naveen Kumar, IP Mahua had visited the Kumar Bajitpur S.O. and he also not submitted the inspection report but no departmental action/punishment/recovery has been awarded/ordered to said Naveen Kumar.

14. In view of above, it can be concluded that since there is no proof of any direct involvement of the applicant in the embezzlement/fraud committed by Chandan Kumar and his collusion with main offender Shri Chandan Kumar, the then SPM, Kumar Bajitpur SO, therefore, no contributory negligence of applicant with main offender has been established. It has also not been proved that the applicant has gained any monetary benefit from the aforesaid

Location:

S K JHA

[13] OA 1150 of 2019

embezzled money, therefore, it will not be justified to award recovery of any amount against the applicant. However, the applicant may be punished for his lack of administrative supervision with regard to inspection of Kumar Bajitpur S.O. and may be treated as failed to perform his assigned duties.

15. In view of the above discussions, the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure-A/2) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-A/5) with regard to recovery of penalty of Rs.3,45,000/- from applicant is quashed and set-aside.

The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount which has already been deducted from the salary of the applicant in furtherance of recovery order dt. 14.06.2019. Apart from that the statutory interest on the recovered amount be also paid to the applicant by opposite parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, the Tribunal will not interfere with the part of the punishment inflicted upon the applicant which relates to withholding of increment for three months without cumulative effect in view of proved charges of negligence and administrative lapses.

16. Accordingly, the OA is partly allowed with no order as to costs.

Sd/- (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (Judl.)

skjha

Location:

S K JHA