Superintendent of Post Office,Thiruvalla v. C.P. Santhamman and Another

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016WP(C)/22553/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order that absolved sub-postmaster and postal assistant petitioners from liability for loss of cash following a burglary. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accused could not be held responsible for the burglary itself, as the loss could not be conclusively attributed to their neglige

What the court decided

AI extract

Superintendent of Post Office,Thiruvalla Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WP(C).No. 22553 of 2008 (S)

¶7

ORDER IN OA 671/2006 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 21-04-2008

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVALLA DIVISION, THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶10

2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, SOUTHERLN REGION OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.

¶11

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. C.P.SANTHAMMA, W/O.LATE SRI.NEELAMBARAN, SUB POSTMASTER, ERAVIPEROOR P.O, RESIDING AT CHACKOLAMALAYIL, ERUMAKKADU P.O, EDAYARANMULA.

¶15

2. N.T.JACOB, S/O.CHACKO THOMAS, POSTAL ASSISTANT, ERAVIPEROOR P.O, RESIDING AT 'NEERAMPLAKAL' HOUSE, NELLIMALA, ERAVIPEROOR.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 22553 of 2008 (S)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1 COPY OF OA NO.671/2006 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶22

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶23

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2008

¶24

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

bka/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, &

¶29

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶31

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶34

The respondents in OA No.671/2006 are the petitioners before this Court. The challenge is against Ext.P3 order dated 21.04.2008 in OA No.671/2006, whereby the liability upon applicants pursuant to a burglary from the chest kept in the Eraviperoor Post Office (which occurred on 09.12.2005) was interfered with.

¶35

The respondents herein were working as Sub Postmaster and Postal Assistant at Eraviperoor Post Office. While so, there occurred a burglary on 09.12.2005. The cash chest of the post office was broken and a sum of 23,440/- was taken away. An initial enquiry₹ was conducted by the Department and later, a Divisional

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶37

..2..

¶38

level enquiry was also conducted. Ultimately, the respondents/applicants were found liable, holding that it was because of their negligence in not embedding the iron safe supplied years back, that the amount came to be lost. Accordingly, a sum of 14,064/- was required to be₹ satisfied by the 1^st respondent; while the liability upon the 2^nd respondent wad fixed as 9,376/-. Mulcting of the₹ liability was sought to be challenged by filing OA No.377/2006, whereupon the applicants were relegated to move the appellate authority, by way of appeal, as per order passed on 30.05.2006.

¶39

Pursuant to the said verdict, appeals were preferred, whereby the quantum of liability was reduced to ₹7,032/- and ₹4,688/- respectively. Still being aggrieved, the respondents herein approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.671/2006, challenging the course and proceedings and in particular, the recovery. The action on the part of the Department was sought to be justified by filing a reply statement. The case was

¶40

..3..

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶42

dealt with in detail by the Tribunal.

¶43

The fact that no proper enquiry in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was conducted stands admitted. At the same time, it is also to be noted that the penalty sought to be imposed upon the applicants was applicable with reference to the recovery of monetary loss, which is only a 'minor penalty', as per relevant Rule in the P&T Manual Vol.III. The observation made by the Tribunal in para 8 is very relevant, which is reproduced below;

¶44

In the present case, the Disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the applicants are responsible for the loss to the Government on the ground that they did not take any action to get the new iron safe embedded and further that they did not keep the cash in the old safe though its locking system was defective. We find it difficult to accept this argument of the respondents. Even if the cash had been kept in the old iron safe, it could still have been broken and burgled as in the case of Angamaly Post Office on 5.12.2000 (O.A. 149/2003). In O.A. 149/2003, this Tribunal had quashed the penalty order relying on the orders passed earlier in OA No.721/02 on the ground that no enquiry was held to establish the charge against the applicants. It is a matter of chance that the burglars could not break open the damaged iron safe in the present case. While we are of the view that the respondents could have been justified in initiating action against the applicants for not taking proper action in the matter of getting the new iron safe embedded, the applicants cannot be held responsible for the burglary which led to the loss of the cash kept in the cash chest. In

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶46

..4..

¶47

any case, it is incumbent on the respondents to establish that that negligence of the applicants led to the burglary and the resultant loss of cash. It is clearly envisaged in Rule 106 of P & T Manual extracted above, that the penalty of recovery of loss to Government can be imposed only if it is established that the loss was caused due to a particular act of negligence. In the absence of an oral enquiry as envisaged under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule, the respondents were not justified in concluding that the loss of money was on account of the negligence of the applicants.

¶48

5. The finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal

¶49

is that, it cannot be said that the cash was lost as it was not kept in the iron chest; or in other words, it could never be said or confirmed that, even if the cash was kept in the iron safe, still it could have been broken as in the case of Angamaly Post Office on 5.12.2000, which is the subject matter of consideration in O.A. No.149/2003. In the said case, the punishment orders were intercepted by the Tribunal placing reliance on an earlier verdict in OA No.721/2002. It was accordingly that, the impugned proceedings were set aside, holding that the Department was not justified in concluding that the loss of money was on account of the negligence of the respondents herein. The Tribunal also found that even though the petitioners

¶50

..5..

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶52

herein might be justified in initiating action against the applicants for not taking proper action in the matter of getting the new iron safe embedded, they cannot be held responsible for the burglary, which led to the loss of the cash kept in the cash chest.

¶53

With regard to the alleged negligence in not getting the cash chest embedded, the undisputed fact reveals that the cash chest was defective, which position was noted by the authorities concerned way back in 1995. It was accordingly that, a new iron cash chest was supplied in the year 2000. An inspection had taken place in the year 2002 and a copy of the inspection report has been produced as Annexure A10, which reads as follows;

¶54

“One Iron Sage was supplied to the SO about two years back, but it is yet to be embedded and brought in use. SPM told that embedding was not done for want of space. The problem can be solved if the existing old one and new one are embedded vertically one above the other. Divisional Office may take action for embedding them.”

¶55

From the above, it is quite clear that the iron chest was supplied without ascertaining the adequacy of space available in the post office, to have it embedded;

¶56

..6..

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶58

and it was simply left there. The explanation offered by the applicants is that it was not got embedded, because, there was no adequate space as taken note of by the inspecting authority, who apparently found the same justified, which made him to suggest a solution to have it got embedded one above the other. The last line of the report is that, it was for the Divisional Officer to take necessary steps to have it embedded. But, what steps have been taken by the Divisional Officer are not made out from the part of the petitioners/Department. Annexure A10 report instructed the Divisional Officer to take necessary steps to have the iron chest embedded. If there was any failure on the part of the authorities in the Division Office in getting the defects rectified and to get it installed, the same cannot be held as a consequence in connection with the burglary, leading to the monetary loss. The liability under such circumstances cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the applicants in the OA. The authorities concerned could proceed against all

¶59

..7..

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 22553 of 2008

¶61

concerned of the Divisional Office, who were to rectify the defect or to give effect to the report/instruction as contained in Annexure A10. In any view of the matter, this Court does not intend to observe or direct anything further in this regard, as the same does not appear to be a subject matter of this case. The only question is whether any interference is required with regard to the order passed by the Tribunal in absolving the applicants from the liability. This Court finds no tenable grounds call for interference.

¶62

The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶63

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶64

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶65

bka/-

Superintendent of Post Office,Thiruvalla v. C.P. Santhamman and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Superintendent of Post Office,Thiruvalla v. C.P. Santhamman and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Remadevi Vs Sujatha L

Dr.Alina Arun Kanattu Vs the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges

Mr. Ayoli Abdulla Vs M/S. Meezan Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India Vs P. Rajumon

Union of India Vs Smt.Vijaya Sukumar

Union of India Vs v.Selvam