Rules, Rights & Rites -93
I usually post all important items related to official rulings, union news, and other general matters on my YouTube channels: Yourskayveeyes (English) and Anbudan Kayveeyes (Tamil).
However, due to the recent spate of orders and the high volume of information being received, I have not been able to convert every item into a video. Therefore, I am introducing these new slots to post current matters and updates that have not yet been published on YouTube. This ensures you stay informed on every detail, even if a video hasn't been made yet …………….Kayveeyes
Recovery made on Contributory negligence factor – Quashed by Cuttack CAT
• Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench quashed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 32,923/- imposed on the applicant, Nihar Ranjan Patnaik, a Postal Assistant, and ordered the amount to be refunded.
• The applicant's period of duty in the Summary Branch (scrutinizing accounts) was extremely brief (July 22, 2012, to August 24, 2012). The principal offender's misappropriation had, however, commenced much earlier (March 30, 2011) and continued after the applicant's duties ended (till October 8, 2012). This fact highlights that the Department held the applicant responsible for a fraud that began long before and continued after his tenure
• The Tribunal ruled that recovery of pecuniary loss cannot be sustained against a subordinate official for mere contributory negligence (failure of supervisory duty) when the loss was caused by the direct act of misappropriation by another employee, and the applicant was not the principal offender.
• The involvement of many officials, including supervisory authorities like the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPOs) and Inspectors of Posts, in the "contributory negligence" (for failure to conduct timely checks or for disregarding warnings about the principal offender) was "writ large". The Tribunal found it improper and unreasonable for the Department to proceed against and punish the applicant alone while leaving other equally or more negligent officials "scot free".
• when questioned, the Department's counsel could not furnish any satisfactory answer regarding the basis for apportioning the loss to arrive at the specific recovery amount of Rs. 32,923/- from the applicant. This demonstrated that the punishment of recovery lacked a rational, justifiable foundation.
• Citing previous High Court-affirmed judgments, the CAT set aside the disciplinary authority's order and directed the Department to refund the deducted amount with interest for any delay.
• The judgment stresses that higher-level officials exhibited more serious negligence: The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPOs) disregarded earlier instructions not to post the principal offender, Shri Balabantray, to a sensitive cash seat, and failed to conduct the required surprise visits and checking of cash/stamp balances while on tour, as mandated by the Postal Manual.
• The Inspector of Posts was also criticized for the failure to carry out the necessary periodical visits and compulsory checking of cash and stamp balances under Rule 270 of the Postal Manual, which "paved path to Shri Balabant Ray to swindle away the Government money".
• The Tribunal reinforced the principle by relying on an earlier, similar judgment (Satyaranjan Das vs. UOI & Ors.), whose ratio was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court (in W.P.(C) No. 4343 of 2011). This established that penalty of recovery is not justified when the only finding is a failure in supervisory duty, without direct and culpable negligence causing pecuniary loss.
(CAT Cuttack OA No. 260/479/2016 dated 24.10.2019)
Post a Comment