om:45-cl-2023-Apr — When fraud committed by subordinate due to supervisory lapse on the part of superior, proceedings initiated against the senior is fully justified

When fraud committed by subordinate due to supervisory lapse on the part of superior, proceedings initiated against the senior is fully justified — The given chunk is a part of a court case regarding a fraud committed by a subordinate during the tenure of an Overseer of Mails, Keonjhar. The Overseer was found guilty of not carrying out quarterly... — Facts: During the incumbency of the Applicant, as Overseer of Mails, Keonjhar, one GDS, BPM Chhamunda BO committed a fraud to the tune of ₹ 68,858 during the period from 24-12-2013 to 15-4-2015 and the Applicant did not carry out the quarterly visit to Chhamunda BO though directed by the Divisional Office on 5-12-2014 for such quarterly check-up. Due to the laxity of the Applicant, the fraud committed by the GDS BPM could not be detected in time and that continued till 15-4-2015. There was a loss of 1.05 lakhs of public money sustained to the department. Hence, charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was initiated against the subsidiary offenders, including the Applicant. The Applicant chose not to furnish any reply in this regard. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority had, on 28-5-2019 passed an order of penalty imposing recovery of ₹ 40,000. The Applicant first approached the Tribunal without exhausting administrative remedy by filing O.A. No. 396 of 2019 which was disposed of with liberty to file appeal and the appeal filed by the Applicant was dismissed by Order, dated 11-7-2019. Hence the present OA relying upon a judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 634 of 2009 (Sukokal Bag v. Union of India and others) disposed of on 11-11-2010 which order was upheld by the High Court of Orissa in W.P. (C) 4343 of 2011 disposed of on 22-8-2011. Respondents resisted the OA and contended that there being no illegality or irregularity in the penalty order passed, prayed for dismissal of the OA. On behalf of the Applicant, it was argued that inspection of records was not the job of the Overseer but only of the Inspector of Posts. Overseer is responsible for overall efficiency of working of the mail line under his charge. Again, he has not been given any training in inspection. However, the Respondents contended that under Rule 355, Overseer has to maintain a diary to record the balances in cash and stamps of the branch offices and small sub-offices situated in his beat and report the result of the check in his diary.

The Applicant has an experience of 7 years and hence he cannot take the stand that he had no training for the job. Maintenance of diary is his job and in the said diary details of subordinate offices are to be reflected in the diary as per Rule 168-A and entries should be made in duplicate and at the end of each week, the upper of the two leaves forming the diary for the preceding week should be torn out of the book and despatched to the inspector to whom summary of work should be sent with the diary for the last week of the month. The Applicant does not dispute the fact that he had not carried out the quarterly visits to the BOs especially, Chhamunda BO thus enabling the fraud to be committed. However, according to him it was not his job but of Inspector of Posts is not acceptable. Had he carried out the periodical visit diligently, the fraud might not have happened. As regards the precedence, the Tribunal has held that every case should be dealt with its own merit. It should be verified whether the fraud committed has been due to lapses on the part of the employee or not and whether the fraud has happened due to act of omission / commission of the Supervisor.