HC admonishes postal dept for ‘eyewash’ defence

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the postal authorities for taking “eyewash” stand to evade responsibility in a case where an account holder was defrauded by a branch postmaster. The censure came as the Bench held that the postmaster’s subsequent death was no ground to deny the depositor’s claim.

The Bench also upheld Hisar Permanent Lok Adalat’s direction to the authorities concerned to reimburse Rs 19,900 with interest, besides compensation of Rs 21,000, to the account holder whose money was siphoned off through fake entries.

Dismissing the writ petition filed by the Union of India, Justice Suvir Sehgal held that the department stood vicariously liable for the acts committed by its own branch postmaster in the course of his duty, and could not evade responsibility merely because the official had died.

“It has been stated in an affidavit that the postmaster made some fake entries in the account of the respondent-account holder in complicity with his son. Embezzlement of the amount by him stands duly established and has been conceded by the petitioners in the affidavit. He was posted as the branch postmaster and committed misfeasance during the performance of his duty. The petitioners being his employers are vicariously liable to compensate the account holder,” the Bench said.

The case arose when the account holder discovered that amount from his post office savings account had been “misappropriated” through fabricated entries in the passbook. The Lok Adalat, acting on his plea under the Legal Services Authorities Act, directed repayment of the amount.

The department conceded that the postmaster embezzled government money from various small savings schemes to the tune of Rs 29,45,155. The Bench was also told that an FIR had also been registered in June 2019 against him and his son in the matter.

Justice Sehgal observed that that the inquiry officer’s findings clearly showed that the official was “acting hand in glove” with his son to defraud depositors and that such misconduct occurred while holding the position.

Rejecting the government’s argument that it could not be held liable because the employee had died and his son was not its employee, the court held that such reasoning was untenable.