Supervisory officers may be held liable for contributory negligence despite not committing the underlying fraud.

The applicant, a retired Sub-Postmaster, was posted at Gondal Bhojrajpara Non-Delivery Sub-Post Office when fraudulent withdrawals were allegedly made from Savings Bank accounts by Shri M.C. Vyas, a Postal Assistant.

The Department alleged that the applicant failed to discharge her supervisory duties by authorising withdrawals without proper verification of withdrawal forms, signatures and passbooks, and also failed to maintain the Attendance Register, from which certain pages were missing.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by memorandum dated 18 June 2015.

After considering her representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed recovery of ₹2,07,409 by order dated 25 August 2015.

Her departmental appeal was rejected on 6 May 2016 and her revision petition was rejected on 23 September 2016.

She consequently filed the present OA seeking quashing of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders and refund of the recovered amount.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the finding of contributory negligence against the applicant was supported by the material on record.

Whether the death of Shri M.C. Vyas, alleged to be the principal offender, absolved the applicant of her independent supervisory responsibility.

Whether the penalty of recovery of ₹2,07,409 was disproportionate or otherwise liable to be interfered with.

The Tribunal applied Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing minor-penalty disciplinary proceedings, along with the applicant’s supervisory obligations under Rule 4(A) and Rule 38(1)–(2) of Postal Manual, Volume VI, Part I, and Rule 33(2)(iii) and Rule 33(5)(ii)–(iii) of the POSB Manual, Volume I.

The alleged failure to maintain devotion to duty was considered under Rules 3(1)(ii) and 3(2)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The Tribunal relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612, State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563, and Union of India v. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617, for the principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to procedural illegality, breach of natural justice, absence of evidence, perversity, mala fides or gross disproportionality; the Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate authority.

The authorities may impose recovery where specific contributory negligence causing or facilitating loss is established, even though the employee did not personally commit the fraud.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given the disciplinary memorandum and an opportunity to submit her representation, which was duly considered; she failed to identify any procedural defect causing prejudice to her defence.

Therefore, no violation of natural justice was established.

The charge was not that she personally committed the fraudulent withdrawals, but that, as Sub-Postmaster, she failed to perform mandatory supervisory checks.

In particular, the authorities relied on the withdrawal of ₹10,000 on 12 November 2013 from an account already transferred to Keshod Sub-Office, where the prescribed verification had not been properly carried out.

The death of Shri Vyas terminated proceedings against him but did not extinguish the applicant’s separate liability arising from her own supervisory lapses.

The departmental instructions on contributory negligence did not confer immunity on supervisory officers; they required an assessment of the officer’s actual negligence and its connection with the loss, which the authorities had undertaken in this case.

Since the total misappropriation was ₹2,79,950 but recovery from the applicant was limited to ₹2,07,409 based on her contributory negligence, the penalty was not found disproportionate.

Applying the restricted standard of judicial review, the Tribunal held that the findings were supported by material evidence and were neither perverse nor based on no evidence.

It held that the disciplinary proceedings complied with natural justice, that the finding of contributory negligence was supported by evidence, that the death of the principal offender did not absolve the applicant of her independent supervisory responsibility, and that recovery of ₹2,07,409 was not disproportionate.

The OA was accordingly dismissed, the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 25 August 2015, the appellate order dated 6 May 2016 and the revisional order dated 23 September 2016 were left undisturbed, and any pending miscellaneous application was disposed of.

There was no order as to costs.