Voluntary payment of recovery amount precludes challenging recovery from DCRG.

The applicant, Kameshwar Poddar, a Postal Assistant, was served a Minor Penalty Charge memo on 19.06.2012

Subsequently, a Major Charge memo was served on 12.12.2012 for irregularities in MNREGA payments at Bahera Sub Post Office, resulting in a departmental loss of Rs. 7,42,315/-.

The applicant had admitted to certain irregularities in a written statement dated 17.09.2010.

The Major Charge memo was dropped, and the case proceeded under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

On 17.01.2013, prior to his retirement on 31.01.2013, the applicant was imposed a punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his pay at Rs. 10,000/- per month, with the residual amount to be recovered from his DCRG.

Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from his January 2013 salary.

The applicant subsequently deposited Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- on 24.02.2015 and Rs. 60,000/- on 27.02.2015) after being verbally asked to do so to release his DCRG.

His withheld gratuity and commutation were released in January 2016 through an order dated 14.01.2016.

A criminal case (GR No. 12/2011) related to the loss was still pending against the applicant at the time of the OA.

The applicant challenged the recovery from DCRG as being beyond the scope of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

1. Whether the recovery of Rs. 90,000/- from the DCRG of the applicant was without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

2. Whether the applicant voluntarily deposited the Rs. 90,000/-, making the challenge against recovery from DCRG inconsequential.

The court primarily applied Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which pertains to minor penalties and recovery from pay.

It also considered the general principle that a departmental proceeding can progress independently of a criminal proceeding.

The court referenced a similar case from the same Tribunal (OA No. 258/2015) where the issue of voluntary payment by the applicant was considered relevant.

The court found that the department sustained a significant loss due to fraud/irregular payments, with the applicant being responsible for a portion, and a proportionate penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed.

The applicant had conceded to not observing departmental rules regarding MNREGA payments in his written statement.

Crucially, the court determined that the applicant had "voluntarily deposited the said amount" of Rs. 90,000/- towards the punishment, as there was no evidence of duress or threat.

This voluntary deposit meant the recovery could not be treated as an unlawful recovery from DCRG, distinguishing it from a situation where DCRG was directly withheld or cut by an order.

The existence of a pending criminal case did not preclude the departmental proceedings or the recovery, as both operate on different principles of proof.

Furthermore, the court considered a prior, similar case (OA No. 258/2015) decided by the same Tribunal, which was dismissed, noting its exact likeness to the present OA where the applicant had also made a voluntary payment to secure his retiral dues.

The court held that since the applicant voluntarily deposited Rs. 90,000/- (after Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from his pay), it cannot be treated as an unlawful recovery from DCRG.

The decision of the respondents to recover a part of the defrauded amount while allowing other retiral benefits was deemed a holistic and non-interferable view.