LEKSHMI G Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT, aggrieved by A-1 order dated 30.12.2000 whereby it was ordered to recover Rs. 24,747 (25% of Rs. 1,23,737/-) from her salary through 10 monthly instalments beginning from the month of October 2000, filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) According to the averments of the applicant in the O.A., she belonged to Scheduled Caste and was working as Assistant Accounts Officer under the second respondent. While working as Assistant Accounts Officer at the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Office, Cochin with effect from 12.8.96 she was in charge of ABS 7 and 8. The Establishment of M/s Madura Coats Ltd., bearing No. KR/31 was allotted to task No. 1 of Section VIII under the charge of the applicant. While working in the above Section, it was necessitated to settle the claim in respect of one Sri V.V. Saseendran bearing A/c No. KR/31/2064. Saseendran was an employee of the Madura Coats Ltd., who left the service on 28.1.94. He preferred an application on 4th May 1998 claiming the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) dues. It was processed by the concerned Section and sent it to the particular account Section for settlement of the accounts. The claimant was eligible to get only Rs. 3,272/- but he was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,27,000. According to the applicant, as per the provisions of Manual of Accounting Procedure, on receipt of applications for settlement of accounts, the dealing assistant was to scrutinise the application as per prescribed rules, ensuring that the claims in folder are complete and correct in all respect and that the claims should be worked out in the prescribed worksheet. The Section Supervisor had to check the correctness of the particulars and the certificates given therein before submission together with Form 2, Form 9 (both revised) ledger card, Form 24, withdrawal Register and payment intimation card to the claimant, to Assistant Accounts officer. In this case one Sri M. Sreekumaran Nair was the Section Superintendent and one Sri Baji K. Varghese, LDC was the dealing assistant. A-2 worksheet was prepared by the dealing assistant and checked by the Section Supervisor before submitting it to the applicant. She also submitted that A-3 subscriber's ledger card was also prepared and signed by the above mentioned two officers and the applicant signed A-2 and A-3 on 28.5.98 and 22.5.98 respectively. According to the applicant, she had to verify only entries in the ledger card and the amount mentioned in A-2. Applicant submitted that she checked the entries made in A-2 and A-3 and believing her subordinate officers she put her signature in the ledger card. Subsequently the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner also put his signature. Thereafter payment was made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by depositing the sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,23,737 in the account of V.V. Saseendran in the State Bank of Travancore, Koratty. The overpayment was noticed only when verifying the supplementary claim put forward by V.V. Saseendran in 1999. According to the applicant, the said over payment occurred due to a bonafide mistake of the dealing assistant and the paying authority did not verify and ascertain the correctness of the amount before the same was paid to the claimant. According to the applicant, as per the rules of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, proceedings could be initiated against a person who received over payment for recovering the over paid amount from him. Accordingly, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kochi sent A-4 registered letter dated 19.5.99 to V.V. Saseendran informing the addressee to remit back the overpaid amount for avoiding civil and criminal proceedings. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also sent A-5 intimation dated 15.3.99 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Koratty to freeze the account of V.S. Saseendran on the ground that for recovering the over paid amount the department was initiating recovery proceedings. In response to A-5, the Bank Manager informed the 4th respondent that Sri V.V. Saseendran had withdrawn the entire amount from his SB account and only Rs. 269 was in the bank. Applicant submitted that without proceeding against the claimant Sri V.V. Saseendran, the 4th respondent sent A-6 memo dated 7.8.2000 informing her and 3 others about the decision to recover the over paid amount from the 4 officers. 20% of the total amount was fixed against the applicant for recovery by A-6 memo. In response to A-6 the applicant preferred A-7 representation dated 31.8.2000. Subsequently by A-8 note dated 5.9.2000 the 4th respondent informed the concerned authorities including the 2nd respondent to recover Rs. 24,747 from the salary of the applicant. By A-9 memo dated 28.9.2000 the 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet appended with a statement of imputation etc. and the decision of the respondent on holding an enquiry on the subject of over payment. Applicant submitted A-10 statement of defence dated 9.10.2000. The applicant received A-8 letter dated 5.9.2000 on 9.10.2000. She preferred a representation dated 10.10.2000 to the 2nd respondent requesting him to desist from effecting any recovery from her salary till a decision was taken on the enquiry proceedings. In response to the representation, 2nd respondent by A-11 memo dated 19.10.2000 informed the applicant that she would be given ample opportunity in the departmental proceedings to put forth her plea and then only the case would be decided. According to the applicant, A-1 was issued just a day before the salary day directing to recover 20% of Rs. 1,23,737/- from her salary in 10 instalments beginning from the month of October 2000 onwards. Assailing A-1 as highly illegal and untenable and not receiving the monthly salary of the month of October, 2000, the applicant sought the intervention of this Tribunal through this O.A. According to the applicant, A-1 was a unilateral decision, arbitrarily taken by the 4th respondent without seeking any explanation on the over payment. According to her, since disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against her as per A-9 and also against 3 other officers who happened to handle the settlement of accounts of V.V. Saseendran, the action of recovery was against natural justice. A-1 was against the specific written assurance given by the 2nd respondent who was superior, to the 4th respondent, to the applicant through A-11. Before conducting of any enquiry as per A-8, A-1 was issued to her. According to her, it was the look out of the dealing assistant and the concerned Section supervis6r to verify the correctness of the entries made in A-2 and A-3 work sheet and subscribers ledger card. Once those documents bore the signatures of the dealing assistant and the Section supervisor who checked the documents, the Assistant Accounts Officer like the applicant used to put signatures on these documents, in the ordinary course. There was no reason for the applicant to disbelieve her subordinates in any of the entries made by them and scrutinised and verified by them in the relevant documents. Therefore, fastening liability on the applicant for the over payment made by the department in the relevant case was highly illegal and unsustainable. As per rules the respondents had to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the person who received the overpayment for recovery of the same from him. Further it was necessary that the recovery be made only after the enquiry was complete. On the above grounds, the applicant sought the reliefs mentioned above through this O.A.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to A-9 memo dated 28.9.2000 issued to the applicant and the statement of imputations contained therein and A-11 memo dated 19.10.2000 issued to the applicant and submitted that in the light of A-11 before the finalisation of A-9 memo, recovery of over paid amount from the applicant's monthly salary was arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that had the applicant verified the payment particulars in accordance with the Manual of Office Procedures, the over payment would not have occurred and as the applicant had not exercised the duties entrusted to her effectively, she had been held responsible for the over payment and the recovery proposed of 20% of the over payment could not be faulted. The said recovery had been ordered after giving opportunity to the applicant by A-6 memo dated 7,8.2000 as decided by the Over Payment Review Committee in its meeting held on 24.7.2000.