Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1756 (RAJ)

Raghuvir Singh Dhaka v. Union of India

2017-08-08

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Relevant facts are that a Public Provident Fund Account, having duration of 15 years, is liable to be extended for a block of 5 years at the option of the account holder. But, concerning Public Provident Fund Accounts in the names of HUF a decision was taken that such accounts should be closed on 31.03.2011 and in respect of which the department claims to have issued a letter dated 22.12.2010 enclosing therewith the necessary notification dated 07.12.2010. The charge against the petitioner was of not closing 5 PPF Accounts in the name of HUF on 31.03.2011 and having received Rs. 1,00,000/- in each deposit and crediting the said amount in the PPF Accounts, resulting in the Account Holders being held entitled by the consumer forum to interest. 3. The penalty levied upon the petitioner is recovery of part of the interest paid by the Postal Department. 4. In response to the charge-sheet, and even before the Central Administrative Tribunal the petitioner categorically pleaded that the notification dated 07.12.2010 and Circular dated 22.12.2010 was never served on him. 5. In the absence of any proof that said letter or the notification was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the Tribunal has returned finding as under:- "I find merit in the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that even if there is no documentary proof to the effect that changes on account of Notification No. GSR 956 (E) dated 07.12.2010 of Public Provident Fund, 1968 circulated dated 22.12.2010 do not bear the signature of the applicant but a Government employee (in this case, the applicant) is supposed to have updated knowledge of rules/regulations notified by the Department and he cannot be absolved from this responsibility on a plea of ignorance of extant instructions." 6. Suffice it to state that the negligence is not that of the petitioner but of the department. It was the duty of the department to have ensured that the notification dated 7.12.2010 which was allegedly circulated vide circular dated 22.12.2010 was brought to the notice of the petitioner. The further negligence of the department is from the fact that the computer operating software was not updated inasmuch as pertaining to PPF (HUF) Accounts the option 'yes' for continuation of the account which had completed 15 years could have been shut down. The further negligence of the department is from the fact that the computer operating software was not updated inasmuch as pertaining to PPF (HUF) Accounts the option 'yes' for continuation of the account which had completed 15 years could have been shut down. In the instant case all 5 accounts had completed 15 years period as of 31.3.2011. 7. It is not a case where the petitioner misappropriated any money. It is a case whether the PPF Account was continued with further deposit made. The money was utilized by the department. 8. The petitions are disposed of quashing the impugned orders dated 8th December 2016 and 9th December 2016. The original applications filed by the petitioner are allowed. Penalty of recovery of part of interest from the petitioner is set aside. Such amount which has been recovered would be refunded to the petitioner within three months from today failing which the said amount would be paid with interest @ 8% per annum reckoned from three months hereinafter till payment is made.