JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. This order shall decide two cases, one filed by Shri Avinash Brijmohan Bajaj and Smt. Meena Avinash Bajaj and another case filed by his son Shri Brij Mohan Kanhayalal Bajaj and Smt. K. Brijmohan Bajaj. 2. The facts of both the cases are same. These cases are against the authorities of Post Office. Therefore, we take the facts from revision petition No. 3074 of 2013. 3. The complainants, Shri Avinash Kanhayalal Bajaj and Smt. Meena Avinash Bajaj had opened two separate accounts bearing No. 1243 and 1244, respectively, under monthly income Scheme. They deposited Rs.2,04,000/- each and the complainant No. 1, Shri Avinash Kanhaiyalal Bajaj alongwith his wife Smt. Meena Bajaj had also opened a joint account bearing No. 1245 under monthly income Scheme and had deposited Rs.4,08,000/- on 4th April, 1998. The monthly interest was remitted by the opposite parties in respect of all the accounts for 5 months. However, on 29.8.1998, the post office/opposite parties informed Smt. Meena that the accounts opened under Monthly Income Scheme are in contravention of the Rules as they collectively exceed the prescribed limit of 2.4 lakhs each. Consequently, the complainant No. 2 was informed to close the account No. 1244. The complainant responded that the amount is invested in the MIS account correctly in accordance with the pamphlet and the newspaper advertisement published by the opponent and further called upon the opponents to deposit the interest in the MIS accounts. However, the post office stopped depositing the interest in all the MIS account of the complainants. The complainants thereafter alleging deficiency filed a complaint before the District Forum. 4. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.3.2002 rendered the following order:- “1. It is hereby directed that the amount which was deposited in the joint account no. 1244 of the applicant be returned to the applicant alongwith interest. It is also directed that the monthly interest amount which is stopped to deposit in another two account of the applicant be deposited in his account. 1. The compliance of this order be followed within one month from the date of this order otherwise Rs.500/- will be imposed upon non-applicant on three accounts. 2. The non-applicant bears their own cost.” 5. Aggrieved by this order, the post office preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 21.11.2012 dismissed the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the fact that the Rules were not followed in this case. He has referred to Rule 4 Chapter 13 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 which mentions about the opening of account and runs as follows:- “4.Opening of account:- A depositor may operate more than one account under these rules subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees two lakhs and four thousand in single account and rupees four lakhs and eight thousand in joint account.” Again, Rule 17 of S. B. General Rules reads as under: “17. Account opened in contravention of rules:- Subject to the provisions of rule 16, where an account is found to have been opened in contravention of any relevant rule for the time being in force and applicable to the account kept in the Post Office Savings Bank, the relevant Head Savings bank may, at any time, cause the account to be closed and the deposits made in the account refunded to the depositor without interest.” 7. He has also invited our attention towards the application for opening an account. Para 5 of the said rule runs as follows: “I/We agree to abide by such rules framed by the Central Government as may be applicable to the account from time to time.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case on merits is very strong. In case such like people are permitted to misuse the rules in that event, wrong precedent will prevail to the detriment of public money. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a feckless attempt to assail the order of fora below. On the one hand, he submits that everybody should be aware of the Rules but on the other hand, it is surprising to note that postal authorities do not know the Rules. They allow the people to misuse the Rules for ulterior motives. Why did the post office allow the complainants to open those three accounts when they were well aware that these persons are misusing the Rules. Even if it is assumed that rules are misused, they are misused while working in cahoots with the post office authorities. The postal authorities have committed an egregious mistake. They were terribly remiss in discharge of their duties. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner/post office slept over for a period of 5 years. It is also clear that the audit department is not working properly. There is dereliction of duty on their part. It is painful and galling that the higher authorities are prone to turn a Nelson’s eye to indispline in their post offices rather than taking the bull by horns. The Post Master General should muster the courage and order an inquiry against the wrong doers instead of filing this frivolous revision petition and further wasting the public money. 10. Moreover, the advertisements, newspapers advertisement and the pamphlets were contrary to these Rules. Action should be taken against that person, who is instrumental in publishing the advertisement in newspapers or providing the pamphlets. Gullible people should not be befooled like this by a public authority like the post office. The petitioner has no bone to pluck with the complainant, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. | 
