Ram Krishna Rawat vs The Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as Chief Office Superintendent in the office of Divisional Railway Manager (Signal & Telecom) North Eastern Railway, Lahartara, Varanasi. Respondents, without giving any notice to the applicant, passed the order dated 28.03.2014 leveling allegations against three persons namely Mr. Barun Kumar Chakraborty, applicant and Mr. Sharda Prasad Yadav responsible for material imbalance in stock sheet. In this regard, respondents passed an order dated 04.04.2014 against the applicant for recovery of loss caused to the Government. Applicant submitted an application dated 07.04.2014 to respondent No. 4 to stay the recovery. On the application of the applicant, recovery was stayed. Thereafter, enquiry was started and on the basis of report of enquiry officer, respondents passed an order dated 06.08.2014 deducting the amount of loss caused to the Government from the salary of the applicant. Against the aforesaid order, applicant submitted an application dated 20.08.2014 with a prayer to get the matter inquired by a team of three members. The aforesaid application is still pending before the respondents. Aggrieved against inaction of respondents, applicant filed present OA.

We have heard Shri S.K. Om as well as Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was promoted for the post of Chief Office Superintendent and joined on the said post on dated 4.3.2010. The allegation leveled against the applicant is related to the year 2008-2009. Initial order dated 28.03.2014 was passed fixing responsibility upon the applicant and others for shortcoming in the ledger book; without following the procedure prescribed for fixing responsibility and imposed recovery of loss caused to the Government as minor penalty. Respondents ought to have adopted the procedure prescribed for imposing minor penalty and firstly a show cause notice must have been issued. No such procedure has been followed and directly order for recovery has been passed. It is also argued that from the impugned order, it is not clear that what was the actual role of the applicant in causing loss to the Government. It was further argued that on the representation of the applicant, respondents started enquiry but procedure prescribed for that purpose have not been followed. Once respondents have formed opinion to enquire the matter, they ought to have followed the procedure meant for enquiry for imposing minor penalty. It is next argued that nothing is clear from the impugned orders or enquiry report regarding the actual shortcoming said to have been occurred in the ledger book, regarding items which short or excess. Until and unless aforesaid specification has not been made, recovery order issued against the applicant is illegal. It is also argued that it is a case of no evidence. Recovery order was passed only on the basis of assumption, without quantifying the actual loss said to have been occurred due to act or omission of the applicant. No show cause notice or any sort of chargesheet have been issued to the applicant, thus, referring to the entire facts disclosed in the OA as well as rejoinder affidavit, prayer was made to allow the OA and set aside the impugned order.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit, argued that since there was shortcoming in the ledger book, which has not been properly filled by the applicant. This fact was detected in the year 2013-2014. Thus, competent authority as per rule has proposed the recovery of the loss caused to the Government. It is next argued that procedure prescribed for imposing minor penalty has been followed and enquiry has also been made and during enquiry, irregularity caused by the applicant was detected. Thus, issuance of recovery process against the applicant is in accordance with law. Applicant cannot be exonerated on the ground that person, who was in supervisory capacity has been exonerated in the matter. It is also argued that all the employees, who were responsible for loss caused to the Government, were held responsible and recovery process has been started against them. It is further argued that procedure prescribed for issuance of recovery process has been followed. Opportunity to explain the fact has also been given to the applicant. He has participated in the enquiry. Thus, there is no procedural lacuna in the matter. Since opportunity has been given to the applicant during enquiry, thus, it cannot be said that principle of natural justice have not been adhered to in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the contents of the counter affidavit and documents annexed therewith and argued that OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire record.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that applicant has joined on promotion on the post of Chief Office Superintendent on dated 4.3.2010. Respondents firstly passed an order on dated 28.03.2014 whereby proposal for recovery of loss caused to the Government from the applicant and two others has been passed, which is quoted as under:-

Thereafter order dated 4.4.2014 was passed which is also as under:-

On the basis of report of enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 06.08.2014 whereby started the process of recovery of loss caused to the Government from the salary of the applicant and two other person. The aforesaid order is reproduced below:-पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे कार्यालय मंडल रेल प्रबंधक (सिगनल) वाराणसी दिनांक 06.08.2014 संख्या: एन/235/1/विविध/1838 वमविप्र पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे वाराणसी विषय: लंबित स्टॉक शीट के विरुद्ध कटौती के संबंध में संदर्भ : श्री सत्यदेव पाठक, समसिद्ध/वाराणसी (जांच अधिकारी) की रिपोर्ट दिनांक 30.06.2014 लंबित स्टॉक शीट के विरुद्ध कटौती के संबंध में जांच अधिकारी के निष्कर्ष से यह पता चलता है कि स्टॉक शीट में पायी गयी अनियमितताओं हेतु तत्कालीन स्टोर क्लर्क श्री रामकृष्ण रावत (वर्तमान में मुकार्याधी / मरेप्र / सिग / वाराणसी) एवं तत्कालीन सीसेई/सिगनल /वाराणसी वर्तमान में सेवानिवृत्त श्री वरुण कुमार चक्रवर्ती सीधे तौर पर जिम्मेदार पाये गये हैं। उक्त दोनों कर्मचारियों में कटौती की प्रक्रिया प्रारंभ की जाये। उपरोक्त पर वमसिद्ध/वाराणसी महोदय से आदेश प्राप्त है। मसिद्ध/वाराणसी कृते मंडल रेल प्रबंधक / सिगनल वाराणसी प्रतिलिपि सूचनार्थ प्रेषित :-1. वमविप्र / वाराणसी। 2. मंडल रेल प्रबंधक (कार्मिक) / वाराणसी। 3. मसिद्ध/वाराणसी। 4. श्री वरुण कुमार चक्रवर्ती, से० नि० सीसेई/सिग / पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे / वाराणसी 41ए, मंगलम अपार्टमेंट, तुलसीपुर, मेहमूरगंज, वाराणसी। 5. श्री रामकृष्ण रावत, मुकार्याधी / मरेप्र/सिग / वाराणसी। 6. मुकार्याधी (विविध बिल) / मरेप्र / कार्मिक / वाराणसी। मसिद्ध / वाराणसी कृते मंडल रेल प्रबंधक / सिगनल वाराणसी

It is settled principle of law that before passing the recovery order, opportunity of hearing must be given. In this case, entire procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority for issuing recovery process against the applicant has been started without affording opportunity to the applicant.

It also appears from the perusal of record that on the representation moved by the applicant against the recovery process, respondents formed opinion on dated 24.04.2014 to enquire the matter. Order dated 24.4.2014 (Annexure A-4) also make it clear that till conclusion of the enquiry, recovery process was stayed. It further appears that enquiry was concluded and applicant and other concerned officials were examined and enquiry report was submitted. Enquiry report dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure SCR -1) reveals that nothing was specified in it regarding the actual shortcoming occurred in the ledger book or irregularity said to have been committed by the applicant in maintaining the ledger book. It is also evident that no specification was given regarding the item, which was found short in the ledger book. Until and unless details of the items which have been found in short are given, imposition of the minor penalty for recovery of loss said to have been occurred to the Government in the opinion of Tribunal is illegal. View taken by the Tribunal also finds support with this fact that no actual quantification of the loss item-wise occurred to the Government have been made in this matter. It appears that respondents have passed impugned order on the basis of assumption only. It is also pertinent to mention here that once the respondents have decided to enquire the matter, they ought to have followed the procedure prescribed for enquiry. It is also evident from the record that no show cause notice has been issued to the applicant before issuing recovery process. Thus, it can safely be held that impugned orders have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to prescribed procedure.

In view of the above, the Original Application is allowed and impugned orders dated 06.08.2014, 04.04.2014 and 28.03.2014 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the entire recovered amount to the applicant @ 6% per annum simple interest within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Respondents are at liberty to start fresh enquiry against the applicant in accordance with law. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.