Disposed

The Union of India v. R Shivaramaiah

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/30127/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision in a minor-penalty case involving a postal officer's alleged supervisory lapses was examined. The High Court found that documents requested by the respondent were actually supplied and that recovery from multiple officers reflected loss caused by negligence rather than punishment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.12.2018 was set aside; the writ petition was disposed of with observations.

The Union of India Vs R Shivaramaiah — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 30127 OF 2019 (S-CAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES BENGALURU REGION, O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES BENGALURU WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC)

¶17

AND:

¶18

R. SHIVARAMAIAH S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 1^ST MAIN, SANJEEVININAGAR,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶21

HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. B. VENKATESHAN, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 [ANNEXURE-A] PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE IN O.A.NO.170/00251/2017 AND DECLARE IT TO BE ILLEGAL.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶29

Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondent.

¶30

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.170/00251/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application by stating as under:

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶32

"2. The case of the applicant is that due diligence was not possible because the computer system which was newly introduced was not working and therefore the fraudulent activities of Shri Sudarshan and others could not come to his notice within the limited timeframe he was there. We had asked the learned counsel to justify the stand they have taken in relation to Annexure-A8 which they does not seem to have answered at all. Once such a question is raised by the applicant, it should be justified and explained to the applicant in the absence of which a presumption has to be taken against them. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. There cannot be any recovery from the applicant. If any money has been recovered, it will be paid within one month next without interest and after that with interest at the rate of 15%.

¶33

3. The OA is allowed. No order as to costs."

¶34

Suffice to state, the respondent herein was issued a

¶35

minor penalty charge sheet for certain happenings in the Department resulting in a loss of Rs.26,00,491/- to the Department. All those Officers who were concerned with the said happenings including the respondent herein were issued a minor penalty charge sheets. The Memorandum issued to the respondent would inter alia read that, while the respondent working as APM, SO SB Branch at Jalahalli HO, failed to discharge his duties as supervisor effectively in SO SB Branch

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶38

and his lapses contributed to the misappropriation of an amount of Rs.25,64,605/- by one Sri. M.R. Sudarshan, then SPM with Sri R. Mahesh then substituted GDSMP in various categories of accounts uninterruptedly.

¶39

Suffice to state that the respondent had filed reply to the said charge sheet. It is also noted that the respondent had sought for supply of documents from the petitioners herein more particularly in respect of User Code Maintenance Record.

¶40

The submission of Mr. Pramod is that the User Code Maintenance Record was supplied to the respondent as is clear from Page Nos.141 and 143 of the paper book. According to him, in fact the petitioners have called upon the respondent to come to the Office for inspection of the documents, if any. The said opportunity was not availed by the respondent. He states that the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application only on the ground that the User Code Maintenance Record was not supplied to the respondent herein. This according to Mr. Pramod is a perverse finding.

¶41

Suffice to state that page Nos.141 and 143 reads as

¶42

under:

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶44

भारतीयडाक�वभाग

¶45

�नीकत AD (14)

¶46

डाकघर�क�व�र�अधी�क, Shri R Shivaramaiah, ब�गल�ूपि�ममंडल, PM(Gr-II), Magadi Road SO ब गल�ू -560086. Bangalore-560023

¶47

No: F/4-3/10-11/Disc-6 dated at B'lore-86 the 26.11.2015

¶48

Sub: Disciplinary action under Rule-16 i/c/w frauds at HMT SO-reg. Ref: This office memo of even number did 12.02.2015 and Your representation dtd 31.03.2015.

¶49

With reference to above, the copy of available user code maintenance record is enclosed herewith. The following information is furnished:

¶50

As per nominal roll of Jalahalli HO, one APM and two LCs were working in SOSB branch.

¶51

One computer provided to APM and SO SB LCs are provided two computers.

¶52

Postmaster, Jalahalli HO informed that the correspondence file of SOSB branch is not available.

¶53

Agreement work done at SBCO Jalahalli HO

¶54

Further, the following information is available for perusal in the Computer system of Jalahalli HO

¶55

a. SB Data is available at Jalahalli HO

¶56

b. The interest statement for the period is available and can be viewed.

¶57

Hence you are directed to visit to Jalaliali HO in liaison with the ASPOS-I (landline contact no.23453033) within 05.12.2015 for perusal and submit your written statement of defence within 15.12.2015.

¶58

Encl:a/a.

¶59

Sr.Superintendent of POS, Bg West Division, Bangalore-560 086.

¶60

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶61

भारतीयडाक�वभाग

¶62

पंजीकतृ

¶63

डाकघर�क�व�र�अधी�क, Shri R Shivaramaiah,

¶64

बेगल�ूपि�ममंडल, PM(Gr-II), Magadi Road SO, ब�गल�ू - 560023. बेगल�ू - 560086.

¶65

No. F/4-3/10-11/Disc-6 dated al B'lore-86 the 28.12.2015

¶66

Sub: Disciplinary action under Rule 16-this office memo of even number dtd 12.02.2015.

¶67

Ref: Your representation dtd 14.12.2015

¶68

With reference to above, in continuation of this office letter of even number dtd 23.03.2015, copies of the following documents related to the charges are provided herewith

¶69

Account no.	Date of Transaction	Amount
3661312	03.02.2010	6000.00
	08.05.2010	22000.00
2402328	24.03.2010	10000.00
	27.03.2010	6000.00
	29.03.2010	6000.00
	03.04.2010	20000.00
2401748	13.03.2010	10000.00
	31.03.2010	12000.00
	29.05.2010	5000.00

¶70

SB LOTs of erstwhile HMT C Class SO dtd 17.02.2010, 13.03.2010, 24.03.2010, 203 2010, 29.03.2010, 31.03.2010, 03.04.2010, 08.05.2010, 29.05.2010

¶71

The charges are relating to the lapses in connection with the above transactions Copies of SB-3 cards and register of verification of SB Withdrawals are already supplied to you

¶72

Available documents in the case are supplied and also provided for perusal al Jalahalli HO. The required documents to defend the charges are supplied. You are directed to submit your written statement of defence if any within 10.01.2016. It is also to intimate that no further extension of time will be granted and case will be decided exparte if your written statement of defence is not received within the specified time.

¶73

End. ala.

¶74

डाकघर�क�ब�र�अधी�क,

¶75

बेगल�ूपि�ममंडल, बेगल�ू -560086

¶76

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶77

We find that, the Tribunal has accepted the case of the respondent that due diligence was not possible because of the computer system, which was newly introduced was not working and therefore, the fraudulent activities of Mr. Sudarshan and others could not come to his notice within the limited timeframe he was there.

¶78

We are unable to agree with the Tribunal on the above conclusion when the respondent himself has asked for the documents more particularly, the User Code Maintenance Record. The same was supplied to him. The Tribunal did not go into the aspect of effect of receiving the user code. In fact, it is the case of the respondent himself that the aforesaid record has a bearing on the charge which has been framed against him and as such, relevant to prepare his defense to prove his innocence. In that view of the matter, as the Tribunal has not examined the issue from the above perspective, really make us interfere with the impugned order.

¶79

That apart, we have been informed by Mr. Pramod

¶80

by drawing our attention to Page No.21 of the paper book that, it is not only from the respondent that recovery has been

¶81

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36435-DB WP No. 30127 of 2019

¶82

effected, but from 14 other Officers from whom the recovery has been effected. If the order of the Tribunal is allowed to be sustained, then the persons from whom the recovery has been effected, may also claim a similar relief. We agree with the submission of Mr. Pramod that what is sought to be recovered is the loss caused to the Government because of the lack of supervision on the part of the officers including the respondent herein, which is not a penalty imposed on the respondent.

¶83

Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.170/00251/2017.

¶84

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

(V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶87

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶88

HKV

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

The Union of India v. R Shivaramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. R Shivaramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Srikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sanjay Babu N.C. Vs the State of Karnataka

C. Kumaravelu Vs Union of India

Jk Tyre and Industries Ltd. Vs Sri Srinath B C

Syed Mansoor Vs Commissioner of Police

Shrivision Homes Private Limited Vs Ms. Supriya Singh