UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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:-