Post Office Guardian Of Nation's Savings: Calcutta HC Asks Postmaster-General To Settle Claim Of Martyr’s Wife Duped Of Deposit By ‘Authorised’ Agent

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed the Chief Postmaster General to settle a claim of Rs 6, 99,500 along with interest, in favour of a martyr's wife who had invested the amount in her local Burnpur Post Office’s MIS and Fixed deposit scheme, which was subsequently misappropriated by an authorised agent. A single-judge bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held:Based on the unfortunate events that led to this writ petition, this Court cannot help but conclude that the submissions made by the respondents are nothing but an attempt to shrug off their legal and ethical responsibility to compensate the petitioners for the loss suffered by them on account of the fraud perpetrated by Sri Routh, the authorised SAS agent, acting in nexus with the concerned officials of the post office. This Court, in the strongest possible terms, condemns the actions of Sri Routh, and other officials from the post office who were involved in the entire scheme of fraud in the instant case. This Court, also expresses its regret at the unnecessary and undue suffering caused to the petitioners for no fault of their own. Accordingly, this Court holds the respondents liable for the actions of Sri Routh, and the concerned officials of the Burnpur Post Office.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court directs the respondent no. 2 being the Chief Postmaster General to settle the claim of the petitioner to the tune of INR 6,99,500/- (Six lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum applicable from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. Such payment is to be made within four weeks from the date of this order.”Facts of the caseThe petitioners herein, included the wife/legal heir of ‘Shaheed’ Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, who was an Overseer in the Border Road Organisation, and had succumbed to his injuries caused by an IED blast during a terrorist attack in 2003. Resultantly, the petitioners had received Rs 13,64,405 as a Death benefit/compensation, out of which they invested Rs 7 lakh in their local Burnpur Post Office’s MIS and Fixed Deposit Scheme, with one Soumen Routh, an Authorised Postal Agent under Burnpur Market Sub-Post office. Such a payment included a cheque of Rs 4,99,500 drawn up in favour of the agent, and handed over to him.The petitioners were subsequently given an MIS Passbook, which reflected their investment of Rs 4,99,500, and they accordingly began drawing a monthly interest, till June 2012.It was admitted that in June 2012, the agent Soumen Routh took their passbook on the pretext of computerising their account, but never returned with the same, as it was recovered from the police. Consequently the petitioners submitted that the post office refused to give them an MIS payment from July 2012 onwards, telling them that their accounts and passbook were not genuine, and that the petitioners request for the refund of Rs 4,99,500 was not responded to eother.It was highlighted, that when the petitioners enquired about their balance 2 lakhs, given for fixed deposit, they were told that the passbook issued to them was not genuine. Subsequently, the petitioners admitted to finding out that a Savings account in their name and without their knowledge, had been opened in Burnpur sub-Post Office, through which transactions had been made.Upon enquiries, it was reportedly found that the postal cheque which was handed over to the agent for the purpose of making a fixed deposit for the petitioners, had been encashed on the very same day, and corresponding amount had been withdrawn in cash, as well.It was argued that upon the petitioners highlighting the fraud that had occurred with them, as well as the arrest of and criminal complaints pending against Soumen Routh- the post-offices authorised agent, the post office refused to take any responsibility. It was argued by the Petitioners that serious fraud had been committed by an authorised agent of the respondents, who were not “vigilant” enough to monitor their actions. The petitioners contended that Soumen Routh was an agent and representative of the respondents, and that not only had the cheque been drawn up in his favour, but the passbook that was issued had been done under the seal and sign of the concerned postmaster, who had been subsequently arrested as well, making it the post office’s responsibility to make good the loss suffered by the petitioners.The petitioners argued that while the respondent authorities had acknowledged the massive scale of the fraud, they had refused to rake responsibility on the pretext that the entire fraudulent scheme had ben concocted by the ‘delinquent agent’.The State-respondents on the other hand, argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in light of suppression of facts and misleading statements.It was argued that the account number furnished by the petitioners was “fake” and that the respondents would not take any responsibility for fake accounts. The respondents...

Post Office Guardian Of Nation's Savings: Calcutta HC Asks Postmaster-General To Settle Claim Of Martyr’s Wife Duped Of Deposit By ‘Authorised’ Agent

Srinjoy Das

Tags