Dismissed¶40

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, v. Sri B.Sankaraiah

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2025WP/31575/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of voluntary deposit of Rs.50,000 made by retired Postal Assistant during disciplinary proceedings later dropped; actual misappropriation by subordinate Grameena Dak Sevak; superior officer's negligence; terminal and pensionary benefits; Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad refund direction confirmed; writ petition under Article 226 for certiorari dismissed; Section 151 CPC suspension application; interest at 9% per annum on delayed refund per Tribunal order; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the Tribunal's direction for refund of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 is confirmed, to be paid within three months from the date of this order; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stand closed. ¶40

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1, who voluntarily deposited Rs.50,000/- with the department during disciplinary proceedings that were later dropped, is entitled to refund of the deposit when the actual misappropriator (his subordinate Grameena Dak Sevak B.Ramachandra Rao) had himself deposited the amount. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

It was not respondent No.1 who misappropriated the sum of Rs.50,000/-; having voluntarily deposited it only to avoid complications to his terminal and pensionary benefits, with the disciplinary proceedings against him dropped and the actual misappropriator having himself deposited the amount, respondent No.1 is entitled to refund of the deposit.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, and the writ petition is devoid of merit warranting interference with it.

¶39

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal; the petitioners shall return the sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 within three months from the date of the order, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. for the bench with Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J.) dismissed a writ petition by the postal authorities (Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prakasam Division; Postmaster General, Vijayawada Region; Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle; Union of India) challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench order dated 10.12.2013 in O.A.No.1337 of 2011 directing refund of Rs.50,000/- to retired BCR Postal Assistant B. Sankaraiah. The deposit had been made voluntarily by respondent No.1, then on the verge of retirement, to avoid complications to his terminal and pensionary benefits after his subordinate Grameena Dak Sevak B.Ramachandra Rao misappropriated Rs.50,000/-; disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1 were subsequently dropped and the actual misappropriator himself deposited the amount with the department. Holding that respondent No.1 was not the misappropriator and was entitled to refund, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, confirmed it, and directed the petitioners to return Rs.50,000/- within three months, with no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010351532014

¶2

[3558]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEM B ER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 31575/2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

THE SENIOR SUP E RINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,, PRAKASAM DIVISION, ONGOL E - 523 001

¶11

THE POSTMAS T ER GENERAL,, VIJAYAWA D A REGION, VIJAYAWADA 520 0 03

¶12

THE CHIEF POST M ASTER GENERAL,, A.P. CIRCLE, H YDERABAD 4. UNION OF INDIA,, REP. BY THE DIRECTO R GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

SRI B SANKARAI A H, S/O SESHAIAH, AGED ABO U T 62 YEARS, RETIRED BCR POSTAL ASSISTANT, SINGARAYAKO N DA LSG S.O. UNDER PRAKASA M POSTAL DIVISION AT ONGOLE.

¶16

THE HONBLE CE N TRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERA B AD. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased toto issue an or d er or direction more particularly in t h e nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for t h e records pertaining to order dated 2 5 .11.2013 in OA No.1336/2011 of Hon'bl e Central Administrative Tribunal, Hy d erabad Bench,

¶19

¶20

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014

¶21

Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 39474 OF 2014

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 25.11.2013 in OA No.1.336 of 2011 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad herein pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

¶28

¶29

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶32

Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2013 passed in O.A.No.1337 of 2011 on the file of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal has ordered for refund of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was voluntarily deposited by respondent No.1, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶34

Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 did not enter his appearance.

¶35

Respondent No.1 was an employee, who worked as Postal Assistant in Postal department. A person by name B.Ramachandra Rao, who was a Grameena Dak Sevak, was also an employee in the Postal department and he is subordinate to respondent No.1. The said B.Ramachandra Rao has misappropriated a sum of Rs.50,000/relating to the Postal department while he was discharging his duties as Grameena Dak Sevak. As it was found that there is negligence on the part of respondent No.1 also as a superior officer in maintaining the accounts, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him and also against the said B.Ramachandra Rao. Respondent No.1 was at the verge of his retirement. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary complications relating to grant of his terminal benefits and pension, he has voluntarily deposited the said sum of Rs.50,000/- with the department. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings against him are closed and dropped. Subsequently, the said sum of Rs.50,000/which was misappropriated by the said B.Ramachandra Rao was voluntarily deposited by him. Therefore, when the disciplinary

¶36

¶37

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014

¶38

proceedings were dropped and closed against respondent No.1 and when the original employee, who has actually misappropriated the sum of Rs.50,000/-, has deposited the said money with the department, respondent No.1 is entitled for refund of the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which he has deposited. In fact, he is not the person who has actually misappropriated the said money. He has deposited the said money to avoid any complications relating to release of his terminal benefits and pensionary benefits. Even though he has claimed for refund of his money deposited voluntarily, the petitioners did not pay back the said money to him. Therefore, he was constrained to approach the Tribunal seeking refund of the said money. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by the impugned order, ordered and directed to return the said sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 within a period of three (3) months from date of receipt of copy of the order, without any interest. Further, it is ordered that if the said amount is not returned within the period of three (3) months, respondent No.1 is entitled to interest at 9% per annum after the period of three (3) months. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition, as noticed above, has been filed by the petitioners.

¶39

We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. As notice supra it is not the respondent No.1 who has misappropriated the said sum of Rs.50,000/-. So, he is entitled for refund of the said money deposited by him. We find no merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and the writ petition is devoid of any merit.

¶40