A.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) This rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner for quashing the orders imposing penalty for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,750/- from his pay in thirty, five equal monthly instalments. The facts relevant for the present purpose briefly are as follows :
(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Sorter in Calcutta Air Sorting in the Posts and Telegraphs Department at the material time. On 21st June, 1959 while the petitioner was on duty at the Calcutta Air Sorting, Dam Dum, he was deputed to work as Mail Agent I Calcutta Air Sorting/3-II from 18.00 hours to to O. 6.40 hours. Another employee, Chittaranjan Saha, Mail Agent No. I of Calcutta Air Sorting/2 received the Mail including the mail bags from Gauhati B. M. S./2 on the same data at 19.35 hours for disposal to Delhi by night Air Service, from the IAC representative of Dum Dum Air Port. Although the said Chittaranjan Saha received the Mail Bag at 19.35 hours in spite of the repeated requests of the petitioner, he did not forward the mail bags to the petitioner till 20.80 hours and he was left with very little time to scrutinise the bags. The petitioner, however, sorted the said bags sector wise and entered the particulars of the forward bags in the respective way bills for despatch by night air service. Thereafter, at about 21.25 hours when the mail to be despatched through night air service was ready for transfer to the IAC representative, Head Sorter of Calcutta Air Sorting/3-II Radha Krishna Bhattacharjee detected that the Chord below the tin seal holder of the said mail bag was found cut at one end which remained attached to the neck of the bag. This mail bag was weighed and found to be 3 lbs. 8 oz., instead of 6 lbs., as noted in the label. This mail bag was then opened and on inspection it was found that the inside bag which contained 9 registered articles including 6 insured letters involving an amount of Rs. 1,750/- was missing.
(3.) Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 by memorandum dated 13th September, 1962 proposed to impose penalty of recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1750/- from pay of the petitioner the pecuniary loss caused to the Government on the basis of a statement of allegations accompanying the Memorandum in which amongst other things it wag stated that the petitioner as Mail Agent No. I of the said Calcutta Air station received the mail bag from Gauhati through Chittaranjan Saha another Mail Agent No. 1 of Calcutta Air Station/1 of the same date, this is, 21st June, 1959 but failed to examine the said Mail bag in accordance with R, 138 (i) of the P. and T, Manual, Vol. I and R. 112 of the P. & T. Manual Vol. VII and also failed to detect the defective condition of the chord of the mail bag under reference as a result whereof successful enquiry into the case was frustrated. (Copy of the Memorandum along with the statement of allegations marked as annexure "A" to the petition.) The petitioner submitted an explanation denying his liability. It was stated that due to certain circumstances which were beyond his control he could not in spite of his due care detect the defective condition of the bag. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 on going through his written explanation imposed a penalty of recovery of the said sum of Rs. 1,750/- by his order dated 3rd May, 1963 from his pay in thirty-five equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of May, 1963 On the view that since the petitioner granted clearance receipt for the mail bag to Chittaranjan Saha, all responsibilities rested entirely on him under R. 81 (3) of the P. & T. Manual, Vol. V. A3 against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed on 27th December, 1963. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and came up to this Court and obtained a Rule.;