Negligent breach of mandatory departmental procedures causing pecuniary loss justifies recovery under minor penalty rules.

The applicant, while serving as Sub Postmaster (SPM) at Dighwa Dubauli, was issued a minor penalty charge memo dated 26.09.2013 for the unauthorized payment of commissions to N.S. and M.P.K.B.Y agents

The respondents alleged that the applicant failed to verify mandatory ASlass-6 schedules and ASlass-5 card entries, resulting in a pecuniary loss of ₹2,90,840.00 to the government

On 28.07.2016, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) ordered the recovery of this amount from the applicant's salary in 58 installments of ₹5,000 each

The Appellate Authority (AA) upheld this decision on 30.03.2017

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting that the charges were vague, the recovery was excessive, and the proceedings lacked a formal inquiry despite his denials

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by vagueness of charges or procedural non-compliance with Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to adhere to the mandatory procedures for commission payments constituted negligence justifying the recovery of pecuniary loss

Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires every government servant to maintain devotion to duty and refrain from conduct unbecoming of their position

Rule 11(ii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which categorize the recovery of pecuniary loss caused by negligence as a minor penalty and prescribe the summary procedure for its imposition

Post Office Rule 246(3) and the Post Office Small Saving Scheme Volume-II, which mandate the verification of ASlass-5 and ASlass-6 documents to ensure the transparency and authorization of bulk deposits by agents

The Tribunal found that the applicant admitted to paying the commissions during the period in question but could not prove that he verified the mandatory ASlass-5 and ASlass-6 forms

The Tribunal held that such an "evasive denial" regarding the specific procedural lapses mentioned in the charge memo amounted to an admission of the allegations

On the procedural aspect, the Tribunal clarified that under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, a formal inquiry is at the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority and is not mandatory for minor penalties unless substantial prejudice is shown

The court dismissed the applicant's contention regarding a clerical discrepancy in the loss amount (₹2,91,200 vs ₹2,90,840), noting it was a minor typing error involving one agent’s payment and did not invalidate the proceedings, especially since the lower amount was ordered for recovery

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s failure to follow departmental instructions directly caused the government's loss

It affirmed the holding that the applicant is liable to compensate for the pecuniary loss caused by his negligence and failure to follow mandatory departmental rules

No order as to costs was made