JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner was proceeded under disciplinary action while he was in the services of the Postal Department on certain charges related to three accounts. He was found guilty and was mulcted with punishment of withholding Rs.1.5 Lakhs from his gratuity, along with deduction of his pensionary benefits at the rate of 20% for a period of five years. The petitioner accepted the said punishment and did not proceed against it. 2. While so, going by the admitted facts, the petitioner was served with two notices under the Revenue Recovery Act, as per which, it is demanded that he pay an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs; and he challenged the same before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cochin Bench, producing it as Annexure A3 and A3(a) therein. 3. The respondents countered the case of the petitioner relying upon Annexure R1, which is a letter stated to have been issued to him by the Superintendent of the Department of Posts, Pathanamthitta, dated 29.03.2016, notifying him that he is liable to pay Rs.4,92,814/- being the actual loss suffered on account of his misdemeanour, along with interest, totalling nearly Rs.8 Lakhs. It also explains that, out of the total loss of about Rs.12,70,814/-, an amount of Rs.7,14,000/- had been paid by the other delinquent officers; while the balance is his liability. 4. The learned CAT dismissed the Original Application, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded, since he has already been found guilty of misappropriation or causing loss to the department. 5. The petitioner is before us challenging the Final Order of the learned CAT. 6. Smt.Namitha Babu – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the proceedings under Annexures A3 and A3(a) against her client are untenable and impermissible because, the allegation of the respondents is that there were 32 instances of misappropriation against him, even though he was proceeded against only three. She pointed out that, as evident from Annexure A1, her client was only called upon to answer the alleged misappropriation in three accounts; and that, on account of his inability to continue litigation, he accepted the punishment imposed upon him. She pointed out that, as evident from Annexure A1, her client was only called upon to answer the alleged misappropriation in three accounts; and that, on account of his inability to continue litigation, he accepted the punishment imposed upon him. She argued that the matter ought to have ended against him there, but that it did not; and that further proceedings have been illegally initiated against him for recovery, even though he has never been found guilty for any misappropriation or wrong doing with respect to any other account. She contended that the findings of the learned CAT are, therefore, in error. 7. Sri.Harikrishnan – learned Central Government Counsel, refuted the afore submissions, saying that, as has been averred in the reply affidavit filed by his client before the learned CAT, the incident encompasses not one, but a sequence of misappropriations. He argued that, since the fraud committed by the petitioner were of ‘severe magnitude’, it was impossible to include all of them in a single charge memo and it is, therefore, that he was notified of only three of the accounts. He asserted that the modus operandi of the delinquent, including the petitioner, were the same in all 32 accounts; and therefore, that when he was found guilty with respect to three of such, it is indubitable that he is guilty in the others also. He pointed out that the total loss on account of the misappropriation was to the extent of Rs.12,70,814/-; and that, out of this, two other delinquent officers paid back Rs.7,14,000/-, with the balance of Rs.4,92,814/- remaining, which, along with interest, would amount to nearly Rs.8 lakhs. He maintained that it is this amount that has been mulcted against the petitioner; and hence, that the learned CAT is without error in its Final Order. 8. When we examine the afore submissions and test them on the underpinning of the holdings and findings of the learned CAT, we must say, for the reasons we will presently record, that the stand of the respondents cannot obtain forensic favour. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded against for alleged misappropriation and misdemeanor with respect to three accounts and found guilty. He accepted the punishment and suffered the pecuniary loss imposed on him. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded against for alleged misappropriation and misdemeanor with respect to three accounts and found guilty. He accepted the punishment and suffered the pecuniary loss imposed on him. The respondents, however, take the stand that there were 32 accounts in all, including the three mentioned above, and that the total loss incurred in all of them is Rs.12,70,814/-. They do not explain how this amount was quantified, though they assert that this was done through an enquiry, in which all the delinquent officers were involved. This is not really relevant to us because, even assuming that there was any such quantification, the germane question is whether the petitioner can be found guilty of any amount other than what has been found against him in the disciplinary action. 10. Interestingly, in Annexure R1 letter – which is relied upon by the respondents – it is stated that, out of the afore amount, Rs.7,14,000/- has been remitted by other delinquent officers and that there is a balance of Rs.4,92,814/- which, along with interest, comes to nearly Rs.8 Lakhs. The reasoning behind Annexure R1 appears to be that since the petitioner has been found guilty in three of the accounts, he should be so presumed with respect to 29 other accounts also, because the modus operandi is the same in all of them. 11. It is needless for us to expatiate that every charge has to be proved independently against the delinquent officers. Merely because one has been found guilty with respect to three accounts, it cannot be assumed that he is guilty in every other account. 12. Pertinently, in the reply statement filed before the learned CAT, the respondents aver that: ‘it is not possible to include all misappropriations in a single charge memo. The faults may extend to substantial number of accounts and it is practically difficult to bring all those account holders as witnesses in the enquiry proceedings. Moreover, as per rules, each charge should relate to a single transaction, as each instance of misconduct is independent of the rest and each instance will depend on distinct evidence. Thus, preference is given to the most serious of important cases and charge memo is accordingly framed’ (sic). 13. Moreover, as per rules, each charge should relate to a single transaction, as each instance of misconduct is independent of the rest and each instance will depend on distinct evidence. Thus, preference is given to the most serious of important cases and charge memo is accordingly framed’ (sic). 13. Interestingly, the afore averments in the reply statement run to the benefit of the petitioner since, what has to be sought to be done is to mulct him with liability with respect to charges which he was never asked to face or answer. 14. That apart, the reply statement further says that: ‘the P&T Financial handbook I and Appendix I of General Financial Rules contain instructions regulating the enforcement of responsibility for losses etc.’ (sic). They assert that ‘within the framework of these rules, personal liability shall strictly be enforced against all officers who are dishonest, careless or negligent in the duties entrusted to them..... ‘Para 3(b) stipulates that if the loss has occurred through fraud, every endeavour should be made to recover the whole amount lost from the guilty persons and if laxity of supervision has facilitated the fraud, the supervising officer at fault and depending upon the results of enquiry, Department proceedings or prosecution shall be instituted.’ (sic). 15. We do not require to emphasize that the above averments are itself the best defence for the petitioner because, admittedly, except a quantification process, which the respondents assert they conducted – of which, there is hardly any material or input on record – the petitioner has not been found guilty in any other account, other than those in he was charge-sheeted and found guilty. When the Financial Handbook and the relevant Rules are admitted to permit recovery only from a person found guilty of fraud, or of laxity in supervision which facilitated such, no action could be taken against the petitioner with respect to accounts qua which he was not issued with any charge memo. 16. To reiterate, being fully conceded, the petitioner has been proceeded against and found guilty in only three accounts, which he has accepted. To employ an axiomatic impression that he is guilty with respect to all the other accounts also, and that the same modus operandi has been adopted by all the delinquent officers in such, can never be accepted in law, being wholly conjectural in nature. 17. To employ an axiomatic impression that he is guilty with respect to all the other accounts also, and that the same modus operandi has been adopted by all the delinquent officers in such, can never be accepted in law, being wholly conjectural in nature. 17. This is more so when the respondents themselves, through the averments in their reply statement, admit that every charge will have to be independently proved and that its proof will depend upon distinct evidence: thus establishing that they are fully aware of the legal scenario. 18. At this time, Sri.Harikrishnan intervened to argue that even accepting our observations, the petitioner cannot be given relief, since he has not assailed Annexure R1. 19. We find no strength in this objection because, the impugned Annexures A3 and A3(a) are conceded to have been issued pursuant to Annexure R1 letter. This letter was produced by the respondents in the Original Application before the learned CAT. We fathom that the argument of the respondents is that the Original Application ought to have been sought to be amended by the petitioner. We cannot find so, since it has already been held by us that the petitioner could never be held responsible for the alleged fraud in any other account, except those referred in Annexure A1 Charge Memo. 20. In such perspective, any recovery action becomes illegal;and hence challenge to Annexures A3 and A3(a), even without assailing Annexure R1, stands justified. In the afore circumstances, we cannot find favour with the findings of the learned CAT; and consequently, allow this Original Petition and set aside its impugned Final Order. We, however, clarify that our observations and holdings do not preclude the respondents from initiating any action that may be available to them in law against the petitioner; however, subject to the Rules of limitation and the applicable statutory scheme.