A.K.PARIHAR,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.2.1986 (Annexure -7), passed by respondent No. 2, by which recovery of Rs. 500/ - (Five hundred) as first instalment was ordered to be made from the salary of petitioner for the month of February, 1986 on the basis of some preliminary enquiry made against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was served with show cause notice dated 16.09.1985 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules of 1958) for allegation of some interpolation made in the record during the period he was posted in Establishment Section. In reference to above show cause notice dated 16.09.1985, the petitioner prayed for inspection of certain record and also sought copies of the relevant, documents from the respondents. However, inspite of repeated requests, the copies of the relevant record was not made available to him. Ultimately, without any further enquiry or giving any opportunity to the petitioner the order dated 20.02.1986 was passed by the respondent No. 2 ordering for transfer of the petitioner and also for recovering Rs. 500/ - as first instalment to be made from the salary of the petitioner from the month of February, 1986.
(2.) MR . Sanjay Pareek, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that no order of punishment was passed by the competent Authority on the show cause notice, issued to the petitioner U/R17 of the 'Rules of 1958'. Until and unless the charges are proved against the petitioner and also the loss alleged to have been committed by the petitioner has properly been enquired into by a competent person, the recovery could not have been made from the salary of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 20.02.1986 makes a mention in regard to some preliminary report, but that cannot be made a basis for imposing the penalty for recovering the amount from the salary of the delinquent officer. After admission of the above writ petition and service on respondents, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In reply the respondents have come out with the case that the said recovery is being made under provisions of the General Finance and Accounts Rules. Miss Joshi, appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently argued that the recovery could be made under provisions of G.F. and A.R. after the petitioner having found guilty in the preliminary enquiry. She has placed reliance on the preliminary report, a copy of which has been submitted as Annex.R/1 -A. After having carefully gone through the said report, I am of the view that he said report is, however, of no assistance to the respondents so far as impugned order is concerned. The person, who has submitted this preliminary report, has also suggested that the whole matter should be enquired into be Executive Engineer or Accounts Officer of the Board and after detailed enquiry the amount should be recovered from the defaulting persons. The report also does not show as to whether the statements of different persons were recorded in presence of the petitioner or even the petitioner was present at the time of inspection by the said Enquiry Officer, who made the preliminary report. Admittedly, no order has been passed on the show cause notice, issued to the petitioner on 16.09.1985.
(3.) SO far as Rule 22 of the G.F. and A.R. is concerned, responsibility is of course on the Government servant, who is found guilty for causing loss to the Government through fraud or negligence on his part. However, even as per Rule 22 the loss has to be proved to be caused by the Government servant through fraud or negligence on his part. However, Rule 22 nowhere dispenses with the duties of the concerned Authorities to hold a proper enquiry for proving the loss caused by the Government servant. Miss Joshi could not show any authority or law which empowers the competent Authority to recover the loss only on the basis of a preliminary enquiry. As has been mentioned above, even the preliminary enquiry report also suggests that a detailed enquiry is needed in the present matter. Miss Joshi has also submitted that only Rs.500/ - have been directed to recover from the salary of the month of February, 1986 whereas there is a loss of more than Rs. 18.000/ -. However, further recovery would have followed in absence of any stay by the Court. This contention is also of no avail.;