Judgment:
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The applicant retired from service as Refrigerator Mechanic on 28.2.2007 and his GPF Account showed a credit balance of Rs.94425/-. However, while disbursing the amount the respondents have truncated the same to Rs.45535/- only giving the reason that there was a missing debit of Rs.3315/- during the year 1984 and interest was calculated on the above amount as Rs.33370/-. The applicant earlier moved O.A.523/09 which was disposed of with a direction to file a complete statement of the GPF Account of the applicant within a specified time. On there non compliance, a Contempt Petition was filed and since by then a statement of calculation was filed by the respondents, the Contempt Petition was closed with liberty to the applicant to file fresh O.A and hence this O.A has been filed.
2. The respondents have contested the O.A. According to them – The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment has further held that "delay in detecting the mistake which could be rectified would not constituted a basis to pay what was not due to him. Nor was he entitled to claim on that account only when he himself was not emphatic whether he had refunded that amount or not". Further, even on receipt of the GPF statement the applicant had not pointed out any discrepancies which was required to be brought to the notice of CDA (Funds) Meerut within 3 months from the date of receipt of the statement of account. Applicant despite temporary advance drawn by him, but not found shown in his GPF statement of account, never pointed out or brought to the knowledge of CDA (Funds) Meerut which is mandatory as per para 5 on the reverse of the statement of account Annexure R-7. Therefore, the respondents holds that the recovery of Rs.33370/- from the applicant GPF Account is proper and justified. As regards to the grounds raised by the applicant the respondents informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.94425/- was at his credit is false and misleading. The answering respondent had sent CCO-9 (GPF Account statement) for the year 2006-07 with a closing balance of Rs.91972/- (Annexure R-8) since the applicant retired on 28.2.2007 the final settlement was finalised as per the closing balance of Rs.78576/- of CCO-9 for the year 2005-06. The balance of Rs.91972/- as per CCO-9 of 2006-07 is inflated. The last subscription of individual was recovered upto 11/2006 ie. 3 months prior to his retirement on 02/2007. He was to get interest upto 02/2007 on the contrary he had been allowed interest upto 03/2007 which was deducted.
3. The respondents have also cited certain judgments in support of their contentions.
4. Counsel for the applicant argued that the rule relating to maintenance of GPF Account of Group 'D' employees are very specific. The same has been extracted in ground 'c'. Para 4 of which reads as under :-
4. He should maintain a broadsheet in Form CAM 48 and all deposits and withdrawals should be posted direct from the ledgers and not from the schedules. He shall verify that the amount as booked in the broadsheet agrees with that of the total in the certificate of deductions attached to the pay bills/payments made during the month.
5. The counsel argued that the above constituted proper check at regular interval and this is meant to ensure that the errors, if any, are detected within a reasonable time. In the instant case, the so called missing debit is stated to have happened as early as in 1984 and without giving any information regarding the same, the respondents reduced huge amount from the credit balance of the applicant at the time of retirement.
6. Counsel for the respondents had referred to the relevant portion in the counter as extracted above and has also cited the following decisions as contained in the counter as well :-
(a) The judgment order dated 30.4.2009 by CAT Madras Bench in O.A.No.80/08 - N.Jothi Vs. UOI.
(b) V.Ganga Ram Vs. Regional Joint Director and others - [1997 (6) SCC 139.
(c) State of U.P and others Vs. Greash Bihari and others - [1997 SCC (LandS) 1972].
(d) Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan - [2000 SCC (LandS) 965].
(e) State of Haryana Vs. C.P.Sharma and others - [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 386].
7. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The applicant is stated to have been a Group D employee, vide Ground No. 5A. This has not been refuted. The notes indicating the procedure to be adopted by the Heads of Offices/Heads of Departments for the maintenance of the General Provident Fund Accounts of Group 'D' employees of the Central Government inter alia stipulate as under :-
'A broadsheet in Form No. II should be maintained by each Head of Office. All deposits and withdrawals posted in a ledger should also be posted in the broadsheet. The broadsheet should be posted direct from the ledgers and not from the schedules for vouchers. Each broadsheet in respect of deposits and withdrawals during a month should be closed on or before the 5th of the following month, i.e. broadsheet for April should be closed on or before the 5th of May and submitted to the Head of Office for review on the following day. The Head of office shall verify that the amount as booked in the broadsheet agrees with that of the total of the certificates of deductions attached to the pay bills and the payment during the month.
x x x x x x
The Accounts officer shall send, by the 5th of the second following month of account to every Drawing Officer with whom he is concerned, the totals of debits and credits in Form VI as appearing in his accounts. Within 10 days of the receipt of the statement from the Accounts Officer, the Drawing Officer shall intimate to the Accounts Officer in writing whether the totals communicated by the Accounts Officer agree with the corresponding totals of the broadsheet maintained in Form II or not and if not get the discrepancies settled promptly with the Accounts Officer.
x x x x x x
The Provident Fund money at the credit of the subscriber becomes payable on the fulfillment of the provisions of Rule 29, 30 and 31 of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules. The amounts become payable when a Government servant retires or on his application when he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement or when he dies. As soon as such an event occurs the Head of the Office should proceed to obtain an application containing the requisite information. The account of the subscriber should be thoroughly checked, particular care being taken of any temporary advances and any other final withdrawals, etc., taken during the last one year. Care should also be taken to ensure that no objections raised by audit during local inspection in respect of subscriber remains unsettled. The account should be scrutinized by the Head of Offices, generally as a whole and in particular all the entires of debits, credits and interest made in the last 3 years before the year in which the payment is to be made, should be carefully checked. After verification in the manner indicated above, the account should be brought up-to-date allowing interest up to the end of the month preceding that in which the payment is made or up to the end of the sixth month after the month in which such amount became payable whichever of these period be less under Rule 14(4) of the Provident Fund Rules and the amount should be paid to the subscriber if alive......
These instructions should not be treated as exhaustive and Drawing Officers should make themselves familiar with the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules for the correct maintenance of the accounts.
The Provident Fund accounts maintained by Heads of Offices will be checked cent per cent by Audit during the local inspection of the offices
8. The above detailed procedure would indicate that right from the beginning there shall be due checking of the accounts to ensure that the provident fund account is maintained accurately. The audit authority should check the provident Fund account cent percent. The cross checking between Accounts Officer and the Drawing Officer as well as of the Head of Office would all go to show that a heavy responsibility is shouldered upon the authorities to conduct due verification at periodical intervals. It is at the fag end when the amount due is to be paid that specific checking has to be made in respect of the withdrawals of the amounts during the last three years. Though there has been a mention that there shall be a checking as a whole, emphasis is given in respect of checking in respect of entries of the last three years. This period of three years may, perhaps be keeping in view limitation in respect of money suit. The so called missing debit relates to 1984 and there has been no mention much less details as to what are the missing debits. Were they any amount of advance drawn, if so when drawn and the reason for not reflecting the same in the broadsheet etc. There would have certainly been local audit in all these years and if the audit authorities had already endorsed the correctness of the entries, the question of recovery of the so called missing debits with interest which is as many as eleven times the amount shown as missing debit after a period of twenty four years does not arise.
9. Earlier when the applicant filed OA No.523 of 2009, direction was given for making available full facts and figures of the amount payable to the applicant. A latitude was also given to the applicant to approach the Tribunal in case he is aggrieved by the action of the respondents. This latitude has been rightly utilized by the applicant and the applicant has brought forward the rule on the subject vide Ground 5C. The detailed procedure elaborated above also goes in support of the applicant.
10. A word about the decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents. The counsel has cited V.Ganga Ram Vs. Regional Joint Director and others - 1997 (6) SCC 139. This is a case where additional increments were erroneously paid and after due notice the same were sought to be recovered. The respondents themselves had waived excess payment upto a particular period (prior to 1985) and insisted upon recovery of excess payment made subsequent to 1985. There is difference in respect of recovery of excess payment made and the one in hand. Here, except that according to the respondents there was missing debit, no details are furnished as stated above. The next case relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is State of U.P and others Vs. Greash Bihari and others - 1997 SCC (LandS) 1972 and Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan - 2000 SCC (LandS) 965. These are the decisions wherein the Apex Court has held that notice need not be given before recovery in case no prejudice is caused. Here the prejudice is certainly caused if for years the statement reflected a higher amount and at the time of payment, the amount is halved on the ground that some 24 years ago, some missing debit was located and the same is deducted along with interest, which interest amounts to as many as eleven times. The applicant is entitled to take for granted that the periodical statement of GP Fund account reflect correct amount as such statements are scrutinized before issue and also local audit does take place at regular interval.
11. Save 'missing debit' of Rs 3,375 pertaining to 2/84, no details have been furnished. It is not known as to whether the above missing debit did occur in the account of the applicant at all. On the basis of the information furnished by the accounts authorities without any details at the time of release of the dues, the respondents cannot be allowed to make any deduction from the GP Fund credit.
12. The most curious part is that there were certain excess credits also. It is trite that deduction towards G.P. Fund subscriptions is made every month from the salary of the government employee at source. These are for the years 1976-77, 77-78 and 1992-93. In fact when the Tribunal had directed the respondents to verify the entire account, it was expected of the respondents to make available the entire GP Fund statements for the years from 1975-76 onwards and inform the applicant as to how the excess credit and missing debit came to creep in, in the account. The respondents are also to explain as to how the audit authorities allowed the same when they undertook the periodical local audit.
13. Taking into account the entire conspectus of the case, it is clear that there is no sufficient proof as to the so called excess credit or missing debit. Unless the respondents make available the details in full as to the missing debit, they cannot be allowed to deduct any amount from the G.P. Fund accumulation. The amount as found in the statement at the time of retirement has to be paid in tact and in case there is actually any missing debit or excess credit, the same should be duly explained to the applicant by furnishing full details and the same could be recovered as amount due to the government from any other mode, as, vide letter No. F 20(2)-R II/45 dated 28-02-1945, it is inconsistent with Section 3(1) of the Provident Fund Act 1925 for Government to deduct any amount due to them by a subscriber from the accumulations in the General Provident Fund at the time of his retirement. It is trite law that immunity is attached to the PF Credit balances.
14. In view of the above, the OA succeeds. Respondents are directed to make the payment of P.F. Accumulation due to the applicant as per the latest statement provided to him without any truncation. Liberty is however, given to the respondents to re-verify from the account any excess amount paid and if so, giving full details including a copy of the statement of account on each year, due notice be given to the applicant to represent against the same, and such an excess amount could be realized from the pension due to the applicant.
15. Under the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to cost.