Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Original Application filed by the respondent-Employee has been allowed. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the respondent-Employee, while working as Sub-Postmaster at Anandpur Kalu Post Office, was issued with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965’) with the allegation that he had closed the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account and paid interest to the account holder in contravention of Rules. After holding the full-fledged enquiry, punishment of recovery of an amount in excess paid by the respondent-Employee to the tune of Rs.1,48,599/- was awarded against the respondent vide order dated 28.03.2018. Aggrieved by the order of recovery dated 28.03.2018, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Director, Postal Services, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2018. Against the orders dated 27.09.2018 and 28.03.2018, the respondent preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 23.01.2025, allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent and quashed the orders impugned therein. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal dated 23.01.2025, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently submits that the Tribunal has committed an error while allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent as the charge levelled against the respondent was duly proved and there was no illegality in imposing the penalty of recovery from the respondent. He further submits that there is a maximum permissible limit provided under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) for deposition of the amount and in an irregularly opened account, the respondent paid interest at the rate of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) on an amount beyond the permissible limit under the Scheme and, therefore, the amount of interest excessively paid beyond the permissible limit provided under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) is sought to be recovered from the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to check the accounts before disbursing the amount of interest paid on such accounts. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to check the accounts before disbursing the amount of interest paid on such accounts. He also submits that the respondent should have seen that the amount deposited under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) is beyond the permissible limit and, therefore, the consumer is entitled for the interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) up to maximum sealing provided for deposition of amount under the Scheme and for the excess of the amount deposited beyond the permissible limit of the Scheme, the respondent should have calculated the interest at the rate of savings bank account interest and then the cumulative amount should have been paid to the consumer. 6. Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that since the respondent has not taken due care in paying the amount of interest to the consumer, the petitioner- Department has been put to loss of a huge amount, which is sought to be recovered from the respondent. He also submits that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent before proceeding against him and after giving him all reasonable opportunity to defend his case, the punishment has been imposed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no other person was involved in the present case for disbursement of the interest amount and, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the other persons, who were involved in opening of the account and dealing with the case should have also been fastened with the liability to reimburse the excess amount paid in the present case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the Tribunal has committed an error while allowing the Original Application vide order dated 23.01.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that seven notices were issued to the respondent for recovery of the excess interest amount paid to the consumer, but none of the notices were replied by the respondent. He further submits that the action has been taken in conformity with the Rule 168 (7) and (8) of the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner-Department. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order of Tribunal dated 23.01.2025 may be quashed and set aside. 9. He further submits that the action has been taken in conformity with the Rule 168 (7) and (8) of the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner-Department. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order of Tribunal dated 23.01.2025 may be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that even the MIS account itself was irregularly opened by some other employee of the post office and the respondent has merely paid the interest on the amount deposited under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). He further submits that since the amount, which was deposited with the post office was used by the Department, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the respondent to pay the excess amount. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there was no fault on the part of the respondent in making the payment of interest as he has calculated the interest and paid the amount as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). He further submits that the disciplinary authority was not right in passing the order of recovery in the present case as any other punishment should have been imposed upon the respondent provided under the Rules and, therefore, the disciplinary authority has committed an error while passing the order of recovery in the present case. 11. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment dated 23.11.2012 rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2174/2011 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bheru Lal Samar) 12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), if the accounts are opened in contravention of the Rules, then the accounts should be closed under the orders of the Head Postmaster and since in the present case, the account was not closed, he was under an obligation to make the payment on the maturity of the amount. He further submits that the other employees, who were involved in opening of the accounts, have not been proceeded by the Department and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 13. He further submits that the other employees, who were involved in opening of the accounts, have not been proceeded by the Department and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 13. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 14. It has come on record that the respondent, while working on the post of Sub-Postmaster at Anandpur Kalu Post Office on 11.05.2012 had disbursed the amount of the accounts opened in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) by paying the interest beyond the permissible limit. In these circumstances, the respondent was proceeded with the issuance of the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the disciplinary authority, after giving all reasonable opportunity to the respondent, came to the conclusion that the respondent was negligent in payment of the interest beyond the permissible limit as prescribed under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). It was held that the respondent was under an obligation to check the accounts and calculate the interest applicable as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and if the amount was beyond the permissible limit, then the interest on the amount was required to be calculated at the prevalent rate of interest of savings bank account. Rule 16 8 (7) and (8) of Office Saving Bank Manual- Volume-I also puts obligation on the disbursing authority which are reproduced as under:- “(7) Payment of POSB interest on excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under Post Office Monthly Income Scheme :- If a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by the PM/SPM with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor. The interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered/adjusted from the amount refunded. The commission paid to the agent on the excess investment will also be recovered from the agent. (8) Conversion of irregular MIS account from single to joint and vice-versa :- Since the Savings Account Rules are applicable to MIS accounts, a single MIS account can be converted into joint account and vice versa. This facility will not be available for conversion of MIS account opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits from single to joint or vice versa. This facility will not be available for conversion of MIS account opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits from single to joint or vice versa. In such cases the amount exceeding the prescribed limit will be refunded with interest at rate applicable to P.O. Savings Accounts. The commission already paid on the excess amount to the agent will be recovered from him.” 15. Since the respondent has calculated the interest on the entire amount deposited by the consumer, therefore, the interest paid was wrongly calculated and the same was paid in excess to the permissible limit of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and in contravention of Rule 168 (7) and (8). 16. It was the duty of the respondent to calculate the amount of interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and the consumer was entitled for the interest at the rate provided under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) to the extent of the amount which is permissible to be deposited under the Scheme. If the excess amount has been deposited, then the interest on the same was required to be calculated at the rate of savings bank account interest. 17. In the present case, since the respondent failed to calculate the amount in accordance with law causing loss to the Department, therefore, he was certainly liable to pay the amount paid in excess to the consumer as the loss has been caused to the Department, which is required to be made good for not being vigilant by the respondent. The action taken by the petitioner- Department is also in conformity with Rule 168 (7) and (8) of the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the Department has proceeded in the matter and issued the charge-sheet and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent, passed a reasoned and detailed order, therefore, the same is in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, since the amount of interest was required to be paid to the consumer only as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly ordered for recovery of the excess amount, which has been paid in violation of the Scheme directly causing loss to the Department of post office. 19. In the present case, since the amount of interest was required to be paid to the consumer only as per the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly ordered for recovery of the excess amount, which has been paid in violation of the Scheme directly causing loss to the Department of post office. 19. In view of the detailed facts narrated above, it is clear that even if a person, who has opened the accounts de hors the rules meant for the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), cannot be a ground to absolve the respondent-Employee as it was the duty of the respondent to check before disbursement of the interest amount to the consumer. Hence, the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent by the disciplinary authority was just, proper and correct. 20. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent rendered in the case of Bheru Lal Samar (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, the same cannot help the respondent in the present matter. 21. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside.