- (1.) This order shall dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 380, 453, 5744, 5745, 5749 and 5757 of 2012 filed by the Union of India and others. C. W. P. Nos. 380 and 453 of 2012 have been filed for quashing the order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby two Original Applications i. e. O. A. Nos. 1080/PB/2010 and 62/PB/2011 filed by Surjit Kaur and Sonia Flora, respectively, have been allowed and the orders of punishment imposing minor penalty against them have been set aside. C. W. P. Nos. 5744, 5745, 5749 and 5757 of 2012 have been filed against the order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P3) passed by the Tribunal, whereby four O. A. Nos. 1171/PB/2011, 1104/PB/2011, 1131/PB/2011 and 1130/PB/2011 filed by Gurmej Singh, Smt. Satya Devi Sharma, Sharda Rani and Smt. Mamta, respectively, have been allowed and the orders of punishment imposing minor penalty against them have been set aside by following the decisions in O. A. No. 1080/PB/2010 titled as Surjit Kaur Vs. Union of India and others and O. A. No. 62/PB/2011 titled as Sonia Flora Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 02.11.2011 by a common order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal.
(2.) In these cases, the proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1965') were initiated against all the respondents for imposing minor penalty, and the Disciplinary Authority, after coming to the conclusion that they were negligent in discharge of their duties properly, which had resulted into misappropriation of huge amount of the petitioner-Department as their misconduct facilitated the two officials of the Department, namely, Hardev and Sodhi Ram Kalia in misappropriating the amounts of SB/TD accounts, had ordered recovery of Rs. 44,000/- from Surjit Kaur, Rs. 54,000/- from Sonia Flora, Rs. 15,000/- from Gurmej Singh, Rs. 92,000/- from Smt. Satya Devi Sharma, Rs. 1,50,000/- from Smt. Sharda Rani and Rs. 1,50,000/- from Smt. Mamta. All these amounts were to be recovered from their pay in 22, 36, 15, 46, 50 and 75 monthly installments, respectively. Their orders of imposing of punishment were upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P4) passed in Surjit Kaur's case (which has been followed in subsequent cases) reveals that the Tribunal has upheld the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the issue of negligence of the respondents and causing loss to the department, but while observing that the respondents did not misappropriate the said amount, it was held that no recovery can be effected from them unless it is proved that they had misappropriated the amount which is sought to be recovered from them. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- ". . . . . We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for in the inquiry proceedings upto the stage of submission of inquiry report. However, we find that the charges against the applicant generally relate to her failure to tally the total of amounts under the Head Cash received from SOs in S. O. Summary with the totals of cash received from SOs in the Treasurer Cash Book on different dates. This facilitated the misappropriation of large amounts of money by Shri Hardev but the applicant was not directly responsible for the misappropriation. On an inquiry made from the respondents, it was found that the respondents had imposed the punishment of withholding of his pension and gratuity in full, permanently, on Shri Hardev. The person who had misappropriated the amount has already been punished. As far as the applicants' negligence is concerned, the same has been established, but she has not been charged with misappropriating the said amount. Therefore, and also in view of the judicial pronouncements mentioned in the previous paras, no recovery can be ordered from the applicants unless it is proved that they had misappropriated the amount which is sought to be recovered from them. However, the respondents were free to impose on them any punishment as per law and rules. The fact remains that a sum of Rs. 44000/- which is sought to be recovered from the applicant (in OA No. 1080/PB/10) and Rs. 54000/- which is sought to be recovered from the applicant (in OA No. 62/PB/2011), was not misappropriated by them, nor has this charge been levelled against them, even though the embezzlement was facilitated by their negligence. Therefore, given the circumstances of the present case, we find that the recovery ordered from them is not sustainable in view of the discussions above and also the judicial pronouncements on the subject and consequently the impugned orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in both the OAs are quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to impose any other punishment on the applicants commensurate with the charges of negligence as per law and rules. Thereafter, the applicants would be free to avail of all available legal remedies, if it is so required. Any recovery made may be refunded to the applicants. ";