AMAR CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as the Complaint inspector in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division, Shimla (second respondent), has instituted the present petition seeking relief against two orders, one, dated February 12, 1985 (Annexura PC) and the other, dated April 16, 1985 (Annexure PG), both passed by the second respondent. By Annexure PC, the petitioner, amongst others, was directed to voluntarily" -make good -the loss in the sum of Rs. 10,000 alleged to have been sustained by the Government on account of damage caused to a Government vehicle (HPS 2200) which had met with an accident. Annexure PG is an order of minor penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Rule It of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 from him on the ground that in his capacity as Complaint Inspector he had failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant by violating the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (?) (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in connection with the accident involving the vehicle HPS 2200. The charge -sheet, dated March 1/3, 1985, which resulted in the -irc position of the aforesaid penaly, is at Annexure PE -i and the imputations of misconduct are at Annexure PE -2. The petitioners reply, dated April 4, 1985 to the aforesaid charge -sheet is at Annexure PF.

(2.) The material part of the impugned order, Annexure PC, reads as follows : - "Due to Jeep accident (HPS -2200) the fibre -class body of the vehicle was completely smashed. As a result of which Government had to sustain a loss to the tune of Rs. Ten thousand (Rs. 10,000.00). For this loss the following officials are responsible for -frustrating the inquiries into the accident case : - They are directed to make good the above loss sustained by the Government voluntarily within a period of three days positively and report compliance to the undersigned." The petitioner is one of the seven persons named in the order who were held responsible for the loss. The order was served upon each of them including the petitioner. Although the order may seem to be innocuous since it uses the word "voluntarily", the implication as to its due obedience is clear if the true effect of the words "directed" and "report compliance, which occur in conjunction with the said word, is appreciated. In other words, it is in substance a command, though couched in a language that may suggest that its compliance is a valitional act of the person to whom it is addressed. The person called upon to "voluntarily" comply with the direction is in all probability reasonably likely to treat the communication as an order. The question is whether such a direction could be legitimately issued.

(3.) The point in issue is directly covered by a decision rendered by this Court on July 5, 1985 in Civil Writ Petition No. 315 of 1985, A. S. Mehta v. Union of India and another. The question in that case was somewhat similar to the one which has been raised herein, namely whether it competent to cover any amount from the salary of a Government servant on the ground of an alleged pecuniary loss sustained by the Government except in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 11 of the Rules or by institution of a civil suit. The following observations made by the Court in that decision being relevant are quoted verbatim herein below : "The salary earned by a Government servant, indeed by any employee, is his property of which he cannot be deprived save by authority of law in view of the constitutional provision contained in Article 00 -A of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the only authority of law by virtue of which the aforesaid recoveries could have been ordered departmentally is to be found in Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The said Rule authorises the imposition of penalties therein prescribed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons. One of the penalties, which falls under the category Minor Penalties, is recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. Rule 16 prescribes the procedure for imposition of minor penalties." It was found in that case that the procedure prescribed by Rule 16 was not followed and that, therefore, the recoveries ordered to be made were wholly without power, authority and jurisdiction.