Decided on October 14,2019

Banshidhar Meena Respondents


INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 353/2013 as modified vide order dated 07.03.2017 passed in Misc. Application No.158/2013, whereby order passed by Disciplinary Authority in proceedings under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short "the Rules of 1965"), imposing the penalty of recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- upon the respondent, has been quashed.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by decision of this court dated 11.04.19 rendered in the matter of Union of India and Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Swarnkar and Anr. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2393/19].
(3.) In Radhey Shaym's case (supra), this court while dealing with the identical issues, held: "7. Indisputably, the allegation against the first respondent was that the respondent while working as Postal Assistant during the period from 17.9.13 to 27.12.13in Sub Account Branch failed to deliver the list of money order paid and money order payment vouchers to MO Audit/ MO Payment Branch under due receipt as received from Mandal Post Office alongwith daily accounts which resulted in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.9,74,750/- by Sub Post Master Shri Ramkumar Meena. It is not in dispute that the respondent demanded some documents, however, the request made was declined stating that the documents demanded do not relate to the charges levelled. It is true that the respondent did not file any representation in response to the memorandum of charges and the disciplinary proceedings initiated being for the minor penalty, the Disciplinary Authority was not required to conduct a detailed inquiry. But then, the Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to record the categorical finding that on account of the respondent's failure to follow the procedure provided under the rules resulted in misappropriation of the Government money by the Sub Post Master. A perusal of the order reveals that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded merely its ipse dixit that on account of the respondent's failure in following the procedure laid down has resulted in misappropriation of the Government money. Suffice it to say that the findings recorded as aforesaid is not supported by reasons. It is true that under Rule 11 (iii), the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to impose minor penalty of recovery from the pay of the delinquent employee, whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. But, the pecuniary loss being caused by the delinquent employee to the Government by negligence or breach of orders must be established on the basis of material on record. In the considered opinion of this court, the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, affirmed by the Appellate Authority without reasons therefor is not sustainable and thus, the order impugned passed by the CAT, though for different reasons, does not warrant any interference by this court, more so when the liberty has been extended by the CAT to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law." (emphasis added) ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.