Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Trib. Jod. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2018WRES/123/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appeal against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. The court held that recovery from gratuity based on negligence requires a prior charge-sheet and disciplinary enquiry, reversing the recovery order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed affirming the Tribunal's order which required prior enquiry before recovery.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central Administrative… — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Restoration No. 123/2018

¶3

And

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2005/2017

¶5

Union Of India And Ors.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Central Administrative Trib. Jod. And Anr.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi for Mr. B.P. Bohra.

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

14/09/2018

¶14

Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.123/2018:

¶15

Order dated 14.07.2017 dismissing the writ petition in default is recalled and the writ petition is restored.

¶16

The restoration application is allowed.

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.2005/2017:

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶19

Challenge is to an order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The second respondent had filed a petition challenging an administrative decision dated 30^th September, 2014 directing recovery of ₹3,97,750 from the gratuity payable to the second respondent. The order was not preceded by any enquiry.

¶20

The case of the writ petitioners in the original application was that the second respondent failed to pay regular visit to the Branch Post Offices placed under his Beat and consequently a

¶21

[WRES-123/2018]

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

fraud in sum of ₹3,97,750/- which occurred in the Branch Post Office Sulakhnia Chhota which came under his jurisdiction could not detected and loss was caused to the postal authority. It was alleged that second respondent paid a visit to the said post office on 16.05.2013 and found the Post Master absent but did not report this to the superior authority. To get over the hurdle of inquiry not being held, the petitioners relied upon Rule 137 of the Postal Manual, Volume-3. The same reads as under:

¶24

“137. Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a retired officer in the manner provided in Article 351-A of C.S.R. for the purpose of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it either permanently or for a specified period and also for ordering recovery from pension and or DCR gratuity of the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss sustained by the Government on account of ht negligence of the retired officer. Such orders can also be passed under that rule and in the manner provided therein, if the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. The standard forms prescribed are produced as Appendix XI-A & XI-B.”

¶25

Suffice it to state that the Rule empowers the postal authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired officer in the manner provided by Article 351 A of C.S.R. 5. Thus, the said reasoning by the Central Administrative Tribunal is sufficient to affirm the order passed by Central

¶26

[WRES-123/2018]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

Administrative Tribunal quashing the order dated 30^th September, 2014.

¶29

We find that in paragraph 18 of the impugned decision the Tribunal has also highlighted that the fraud was committed over a period of time and thus even if it is treated that the second respondent was negligent in not reporting the presence of the Post Master to the superior officer, it can not be inferred that if information was given the fraud could have been prevented.

¶30

This we note was a moral justification in support of second respondent.

¶31

But the primary reasoning has to be that no recovery could be made without issuing charge-sheet and holding enquiry to fix the responsibility.

¶32

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶34

Ashutosh

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Trib. Jod. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Trib. Jod. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanti Lal Bheel Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs Santosh Kumar Bhati

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Nathu Singh

Ramkaran Sankhla Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Manak Ram and Ors.

Mahaveer Vs State of Rajasthan