Recovery for procedural negligence requires proof of pecuniary loss caused to the Government.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant who had worked as Sub-Postmaster at Atladra Post Office, processed the premature closure of an MIS account on 13 February 2015.

The account holder denied attending the Post Office, signing the closure voucher or receiving the proceeds of Rs.20,790; the respondents alleged that the voucher signature differed from the specimen signature.

The applicant maintained that the proceeds were credited to the account holder’s savings account and that an SAS agent had committed any fraud.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed recovery of Rs.20,790 and withheld one increment for six months without cumulative effect; the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal.

The applicant challenged both orders before the Tribunal.

The respondents objected that he had not sought revision under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Whether the OA was maintainable despite the applicant not pursuing revision under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Whether the finding that the applicant failed to verify the signature, and the resulting penalties of recovery and withholding of an increment, were sustainable.

Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 requires an applicant ordinarily to exhaust available service remedies before approaching the Tribunal; under Section 20(2)(a), that requirement is met when the competent authority has rejected the applicant’s appeal.

Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for revision, but the Tribunal held that revision is not a further appeal that must be exhausted in the circumstances of this case.

Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules permits recovery from a Government servant only for pecuniary loss caused to the Government by that servant’s negligence or breach of orders.

Rules 106 and 107 of the P&T Manual, Volume III, require responsibility and causation to be established and require realistic assessment of contributory negligence and relevant circumstances.

Rule 11(iv) permits withholding of increments as a minor penalty, with the procedure for minor penalties governed by Rule 16.

The Tribunal also referred to B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, for the principle that the quantum of penalty is ordinarily for the disciplinary authority to determine.

The applicant had processed the closure and was required to exercise due care in verifying the signature and transaction documents.

The discrepancy between the voucher and specimen signature, together with the account holder’s denial, supported the finding of a procedural lapse; the possibility that an SAS agent perpetrated fraud did not absolve the applicant of that duty.

However, the orders did not establish that the Government suffered a pecuniary loss, whether the account holder was compensated, who operated or withdrew the credited funds, or what loss was attributable to the applicant’s lapse.

Because the entire amount was recovered without the assessment required by Rules 106 and 107, the recovery could not stand.

The separate increment penalty remained supportable on the established procedural lapse.

The OA was maintainable because the applicant’s appeal had been rejected, satisfying Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

It quashed the recovery of Rs.20,790 and directed that any amount already recovered be refunded within three months of receipt of the order; the penalty of withholding one increment for six months without cumulative effect was upheld.

Consequential benefits were to be extended in accordance with the rules.

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, was disposed of, with no order as to costs.