DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners, Union of India and its officials in the Department of Posts seek to question the order dated 08.08.2011 as passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 62/2008 whereby by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') has quashed the orders passed against the applicant (the respondent herein) in the disciplinary proceedings; and has ordered refund of the recovered amount after finding that the proceedings against the applicant had been in violation of the principles of natural justice and the department failed to deal with the principal offenders for the questioned acts/omissions where the applicant was rather a subsidiary offender. The CAT has, however, left it open for the petitioners to hold joint or separate enquiry against the principal and the subsidiary offenders, and then, to apportion the quantum of the loss suffered due to the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- from a Savings Bank Account.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are as follows: The applicant-respondent, while working on the post of Postal Assistant ('PA') in the Savings Bank Control Organization ('SBCO') at Sriganganagar, was served with a memo dated 06.02.2004 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sriganganagar Division (the Disciplinary Authority) proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification and Control Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the allegation that while working as PA, SBCO, Sriganganagar HO on 12.1.2001, he failed to check the Savings Bank (SB) Branch vouchers dated 11.01.2001 with the list of vouchers; and one voucher pertaining to SB withdrawal dated 11.1.2001 for Rs 25,000/- in SB account number 136939, entered in the list at serial number 23, was found missing in the checking carried out on 26.02.2001. It was alleged that the forged withdrawal could not be detected in time for the applicant's failure to check on 12.01.2001 and, therefore, the department suffered a loss of Rs 25,000/-. It was also alleged that for such an omission, the applicant violated Rule 3 (i) (ii) of Part IV of the Postal Small Savings Scheme. It appears that on 20.2.2004, the applicant-respondent applied to the department for providing him the copies of certain documents for his defence which included: (i) Duty list of SBCO for the months of January 2001 to February 2001; (ii) Instruction book of the postmaster for the period between 08.01.2001 to 22.01.2001; (iii) Vouchers receipt issued to the SB branch; (iv) Voucher verification register of SBCO for the months of January 2001; (v) MPR of SBCO for the months of December 2000 and January 2001; and (vi) Copy of Rule 3 Part IV as given in A.N Dureja Book on Post office Small Savings Scheme. It is borne out from the material on record that while the respondent was supplied with a photocopy of the relevant rule as per item No.(vi) (supra); and he was allowed to inspect the other documents except that at item No.(iii), which was said to be not available for being retained for 2 years only. The applicant-respondent in his reply dated 09.03.2004 stated the grievance of having not been supplied with the copies of the documents sought and having been allowed only to inspect. Further, the respondent particularly stated that he was not even allowed to inspect the voucher's receipt given to the SB Branch on the ground that such receipt was preserved only for 2 years. The respondent contended that when the charge-sheet was issued in the year 2004 and the voucher's receipt, which formed the basis of allegation, was not available, the charges levelled against him remained baseless. The respondent also stated the grievance that the department supplied the copies of the aforesaid and co-related document to the other delinquent employees but refused to give the same to him. On the merits of the allegations, the stand of the respondent was that checking of the list of transactions and sealed bundles was the duty of one Shri Meghraj Swami who was working as PA- III SBCO. The respondent maintained that he was neither incharge of SBCO on 12.01.2001 nor was ordered to work as such. It appears that the said Shri Meghraj Swami was on leave on the given day, i.e., 12.01.2001 and the stand of the department had been that his duties, including those of receiving the vouchers from the SB Branch, was assigned to the respondent.
(3.) AFTER examining the stand of the delinquent-respondent and the department, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order on 21.05.2004 holding the respondent guilty of violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) of Part IV of the Post Office Small Saving Scheme and thereby, having contravened the Conduct Rules with dereliction of duty. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, imposed the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.15,000/- together with interest of Rs.1,750/- from the salary of the respondent. This order dated 21.05.2004 was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 30.12.2004 and by the Revisional Authority on 08.02.2007. The relevant aspects of the matter have been succinctly put in the Revisional Authority's order dated 08.02.2007 and the same could be usefully reproduced as under:- "4. I have carefully and dispassionately gone through the petition along with case file and other relevant records of the case. The record reveals that PA �III and Incharge SBCO was on leave on 12.1.2001 and the petitioner was looking after his duties also. The vouchers of 11.1.2001 were undoubtedly received by him and on inquiry it was found that the withdrawal form for Rs.25000/- dated 11.1.2001 of SB account no.136939 duly entered in the list of Sl.No.23 was missing. This is a very serious negligence on the part of the petitioner which frustrated the inquiry and it could not be established as to whom and how the amount was paid. Under these circumstances the petitioner can not be absolved of his accountability to receive and keep the vouchers safely. None of the argument put forth by him about his duty is maintainable. Since he was entrusted the duty of PA-III and Incharge SBCO, he cannot escape from his responsibility. As regard to his claim for equality with other officials about access to the relevant documents, it is observed that after examination of original documents and taking extracts thereof, the issue has no weight. The petitioner's allegations of mala fide action and biasness with a scheduled caste also do not subsist. As per rules recovery of Govt. loss is to be made from the officials who facilitated the loss due to their negligence." Aggrieved by the orders so passed in the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant-respondent filed the OA leading to this writ petition. The respondent contended before the CAT that the orders passed against him were without any basis, wholly perverse and illegal. It was submitted that the applicant- respondent was not working as Supervisor at the relevant time and it was not a part of his duty to receive the vouchers and hence, he was not responsible for receiving the sealed cover bundle of vouchers and examining them. Besides, the applicant- respondent also submitted that a proper disciplinary inquiry should have been conducted because the charges against him were required to be proved by documentary evidence; and he should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses after perusal of the documents which was not done. The applicant- respondent pleaded that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend his case except filing a written reply; and hence, the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the orders passed against him were liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, the Department's stand was that the CAT would undertake the task of judicial review only of the procedure and not of the decision taken by the competent authorities; and as the department had followed the prescribed procedure and the applicant-respondent participated at every level, there was no irregularity in the procedure so as to call for interference. Besides, it was also contended that as on 12.01.2001, the applicant- respondent was given the charge of PA-III as well as Supervisor of SBCO Branch and he ought to have verified the absence of the missing voucher; and having failed to do so, had rightly been penalized. ;