Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 888 (MP)

Yagya Narayan Patel v. Union of India

2015-08-25

RAJENDRA MENON, S.K.SETH

body2015
ORDER 1. Petitioner was working in the postal department at Rewa. While working on the post of Postal Assistant, petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.9.2007 under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and allegations were made with regard to misappropriation of amount of deposits made by the customers in their Recurring Deposit (RD) Accounts, Saving Accounts etc. In all there was a difference of more than Rs.6,55,016.55. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 16.1.2006 and thereafter a charge-sheet was initiated against him. Ultimately the petitioner retired from service and as the respondents were required to seek approval from the President of the Department under rule 9 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to conduct the inquiry, the matter was referred to the President and the President on 15.11.2011 did not grant approval and therefore proceedings were dropped. After the proceedings were dropped the petitioner contends that departmental enquiry pending against him was closed, but no action was taken to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by him. When this amount was not refunded, an application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of the Arbitration Tribunals Act and the same having being dismissed, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, as the petitioner was deposited the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on pressure and threat of the Superintendent of the department, now when the entire departmental proceedings are dropped, this amount should be refunded. 3. Respondents refute the aforesaid and contend that when the matter travelled to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the matter and in paras 12 and 13 recorded the following findings refuting to refund the amount to the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Paras 12 and 13 of the said findings reads as under : “12. We are surprised to note that no steps were taken by the respondents for seeking further extension of time, when it was not possible to conclude the inquiry within the extended time i.e. till 30.11.2011. A request for further extension in-fact should have been made by bringing to the notice of this Tribunal the progress made in the inquiry till then, so as to consider such request for completing the inquiry. A request for further extension in-fact should have been made by bringing to the notice of this Tribunal the progress made in the inquiry till then, so as to consider such request for completing the inquiry. However, instead of doing so, alleging that since the inquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time limit which may invite action for contempt against the respondents in order to avoid any unpleasant consequence, the entire inquiry proceeding was dropped by the order dated 15.12.2011 i.e. 15 days prior to the expiry of the extended period. Ofcourse it is within the discretion of the respondents to do so. However, considering the seriousness of the charge relating to commission of a fraud/misappropriation of huge amount entrusted by the customers by way of deposits in their RD accounts with the applicant, it was expected of the respondents to apply for further extension of time, which request could have been considered. However, now since the highest authority has taken a decision to drop the inquiry proceeding, it will not be appropriate on our part to make further comments on this aspect. 13. As stated earlier, it is obvious from record that at the time of depositing part payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by the applicant, he had given an undertaking to indemnify, in case the Postal Department is held responsible by any Court of law and in that event he will deposit the balance of his share in the amount allegedly misappropriated. On this undertaking the suspension order was also revoked. The said undertaking has not been withdrawn, and as such, it is still binding on the applicant. The respondents have filed on record copy of certain decisions delivered by the District consumer Forum and National Consumer Commission in which directions were issued to the Postal Department to make payment to the concerned customers, who approached them, for failing to provide service to them by the respondents in the matter of withdrawal of amount from their RD accounts on maturity. It is not known if any criminal prosecution under section 120B, 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal code misappropriation of Government funds was lodged against the applicant and other employees involved in committing the fraud who are also directed to deposit amount of their share to make good the loss. It is not known if any criminal prosecution under section 120B, 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal code misappropriation of Government funds was lodged against the applicant and other employees involved in committing the fraud who are also directed to deposit amount of their share to make good the loss. As such, we are of the considered view that looking to the seriousness of the charge and the fact that the Postal Department is facing adverse orders regarding their liability refund the amount deposited by the customers to them, it will not be appropriate to grant the prayer of the applicant and to direct the respondents to refund the amount deposited by him.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. We have considered the contention advanced and we find that the amount was deposited by the petitioner with certain undertaking even before charge-sheet was issued. There is no material available on record to indicate that any pressure or threat was imposed upon the petitioner for doing so. After closure of the Department Enquiry, Tribunal has considered the matter and in paras 12 and 13 have recorded a detailed finding, as reproduced hereinabove. 5. Keeping in view the reasons indicated by the Tribunal we see that reasonable approach has been taken by the Tribunal and it is not a fit case where extra-ordinary jurisdiction available to us in a proceeding under Article 227 should be invoked. 6. Accordingly, we find no ground for interference, the petition is therefore dismissed.