Union Of India And Ors vs Sangeeta Kukreja And Ors

By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned legality of orders dated 16.8.18 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 290/00253/2015 and order dated 15.10.18 passed in Original Application No.290/00165/2015, questioning the legality of order dated 16.6.15, imposing penalty of recovery of Rs.1,02,815/- and order dated 6.4.15, imposing penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.1,09,550/- respectively, 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"), have been allowed and the orders impugned have been quashed.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions are covered by decision of this court dated 11.4.19 rendered in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Swarnkar & Anr.: D.B.C.Writ Petition No.2393/19.

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 27.12.13 in 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, moreso 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)

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while not disputing that the controversy involved in the present petitions stand covered by the decision of this court in Radhey Shyam's case (supra), submitted that in the said matters, the Disciplinary Authority was extended liberty to take appropriate proceedings against the respondent therein in accordance with law, whereas, in the instant cases, while quashing the orders impugned, no such liberty has been extended to the petitioners herein by the CAT and therefore, the orders impugned need to be modified to this extent. Learned counsel submitted that in SLP No.673/15 preferred by the Union of India against the decision of this court dated 20.3.14 in Civil Writ Petition No.1695/14 involving identical questions, the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, has extended liberty to initiate action against the respondent therein after giving due opportunity and based on outcome of the said disciplinary proceedings, to pass appropriate orders.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly not opposed the limitation modification as prayed for.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed in light of the decision of this court in Radhey Shyam's case (supra). However, it is clarified that the petitioners shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent afresh in accordance with law and based on outcome of the said disciplinary proceedings, pass appropriate orders. The orders impugned passed by the CAT shall stand modified accordingly. No order as to costs.