APHC010351532014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION NO: 31575/2014 Between: 1. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,, PRAKASAM DIVISION, ONGOLE 2. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,, VIJAYAWADA REGION, VIJAYAWADA 520 003 3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER 4. UNION OF INDIA,, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI 1. SRI B SANKARAIAH, S/O SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED BCR POSTAL ASSISTANT, SINGARAYAKONDA LSG S.O. UNDER PRAKASAM POSTAL DIVISION AT ONGOLE. 2. THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to order dated 25.11.2013 in OA No.1336/2011 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 31575/2014 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,, PRAKASAM DIVISION, ONGOLE - 523 001 THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,, VIJAYAWADA REGION, VIJAYAWADA 520 003 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,, A.P. CIRCLE, HYDERABAD UNION OF INDIA,, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI ...PETITIONER(S) AND SRI B SANKARAIAH, S/O SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED BCR POSTAL ASSISTANT, SINGARAYAKONDA LSG S.O. ER PRAKASAM POSTAL DIVISION AT ONGOLE. THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ for the records pertaining to order dated 25.11.2013 in OA No.1336/2011 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,, PRAKASAM THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,, VIJAYAWADA REGION, GENERAL,, A.P. CIRCLE, HYDERABAD UNION OF INDIA,, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ...PETITIONER(S) SRI B SANKARAIAH, S/O SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED BCR POSTAL ASSISTANT, SINGARAYAKONDA LSG S.O. THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ for the records pertaining to order dated 25.11.2013 in OA No.1336/2011 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014 Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 39474 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 25.11.2013 in OA No.1.336 of 2011 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad herein pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2013 passed in O.A.No.1337 of 2011 on the file of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal has ordered for refund of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was voluntarily deposited by respondent No.1, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 did not enter his appearance. 4. Respondent No.1 was an employee, who worked as Postal Assistant in Postal department. A person by name B.Ramachandra Rao, who was a Grameena Dak Sevak, was also an employee in the Postal department and he is subordinate to respondent No.1. The said B.Ramachandra Rao has misappropriated a sum of Rs.50,000/- relating to the Postal department while he was discharging his duties as Grameena Dak Sevak. As it was found that there is negligence on the part of respondent No.1 also as a superior officer in maintaining the accounts, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him and also against the said B.Ramachandra Rao. Respondent No.1 was at the verge of his retirement. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary complications relating to grant of his terminal benefits and pension, he has voluntarily deposited the said sum of Rs.50,000/- with the department. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings against him are closed and dropped. Subsequently, the said sum of Rs.50,000/- which was misappropriated by the said B.Ramachandra Rao was voluntarily deposited by him. Therefore, when the disciplinary 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014 proceedings were dropped and closed against respondent No.1 and when the original employee, who has actually misappropriated the sum of Rs.50,000/-, has deposited the said money with the department, respondent No.1 is entitled for refund of the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which he has deposited. In fact, he is not the person who has actually misappropriated the said money. He has deposited the said money to avoid any complications relating to release of his terminal benefits and pensionary benefits. Even though he has claimed for refund of his money deposited voluntarily, the petitioners did not pay back the said money to him. Therefore, he was constrained to approach the Tribunal seeking refund of the said money. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by the impugned order, ordered and directed to return the said sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 within a period of three (3) months from date of receipt of copy of the order, without any interest. Further, it is ordered that if the said amount is not returned within the period of three (3) months, respondent No.1 is entitled to interest at 9% per annum after the period of three (3) months. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition, as noticed above, has been filed by the petitioners. 5. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. As notice supra it is not the respondent No.1 who has misappropriated the said sum of Rs.50,000/-. So, he is entitled for refund of the said money deposited by him. We find no merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and the writ petition is devoid of any merit. 6. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petitioners shall return the said 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31575 of 2014 sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 within a period of three (3) months from date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 20.11.2025 MDP