AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
The applicant, herein, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 04.11.1987 in the pay scale Rs.1200-2040 in GNCTD. She was promoted as PGT
vide orders Dt. 16.5.2016 and is presently serving as such. During her long service, her pay has been got fixed at many points of time on account of
promotion as well as ACP/MACP.
The applicant is aggrieved that a letter has now been issued to her on 12.10.2020, which is impugned in the instant OA, wherein a copy of Audit
Inspection Note dated 06.10.2020 has also been attached. The Audit Note has brought out that her basic pay, as of 1.1.2006, was correctly fixed at
Rs. 6,725/-. However, subsequent pay fixation done at various stages including 3rd MACP were not done correctly. It is alleged that certain over
payments have taken place and the Audit Note shows such excess to be Rs.2,28,982/- and that it is required to be recovered and future pay also
corrected.
The applicant further brings out that no show cause notice has been issued to her before advising this Audit Note along with alleged recovery
therein on 12.10.2020.
As against this, the applicant further brings out a document signed by Head of School where she worked at that time, that her basic pay was fixed
as on 01.01.2006 was Rs. 6,700/- (Annexure A/12) of the OA.
With this view, the applicant pleads that the entire Audit Inspection Note itself, is based upon incorrect facts. Had a show cause notice been issued,
she could have submitted her clarification for appreciation by Respondents and decision thereafter.
However, the applicant preferred representation dated 14.10.2020 followed by another representation of 23.11.2020 which have been undecided so
far.
The applicant, further pleads that in terms of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer )in
Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014 decided on 18.12.2014, recoveries from Group ‘C’ staff for excess payments allegedly made over a period
pertaining to more than a decade or so, have been disallowed and DoP&T have also issued an Office Memorandum on 02.03.2016 in this regard.
These directions have also been violated by Respondents while issuing the impugned order Dt 12.10.2020.
The applicant also relies upon a judgement Dt 17.8.2020 passed by Principal Bench of CAT in OA-1066 0f 2020, Ravi Kant Vats vs NDMC, in
similar circumstances wherein such recovery notice, without issuance of a prior show cause notice, was quashed with liberty to respondents to issue a
show cause notice and decide the issue later.
It is against this wrong calculation and recoverythereon, that the applicant has filed this OA and sought reliefs.
The respondents pleaded that the applicant had already submitted her representation on 14.10.2020 followed by another representation on
23.11.2020. This is very recent and despite this OA has been filed. Accordingly, the OA is not maintainable, this being pre-mature since
representations were submitted in the recent past only.
Matter has been heard. Shri A.K. Behera, learned counsel represented the applicant and Ms. Pratima Gupta, learned counsel represented the
respondents.
The applicant has been paid certain salary during her long service and during this period, pay fixation has also been done at many stages. All of a
sudden, the Audit Inspection has noted on 06.10.2020 that pay fixation done since 01.01.2007 is wrong and on that basis, the recovery of Rs.
2,28,982/- has also been ordered.
Not only this, the current monthly salary has also been reduced because the Audit reached such a decision.
Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the respondents to have issued a show cause notice first and given some fixed time to the
applicant to reply to the same and take a decision thereafter.
It is only after such time so fixed would have expired, that an order is required to be passed, before it is implemented. This is the bare minimum
requirement from natural justice point of view. Since this has not been done, the order dated 12.10.2020 and 06.10.2020 is liable to be quashed qua the
applicant.
The Tribunal accordingly, quashes and sets aside the order dated 06.10.2020 as well as 12.10.2020 qua the applicant.
The respondents are at liberty to issue a show cause notice and give liberty to the applicant to submit her explanation in specified time. It is only
thereafter, that the respondents may pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the reply submitted if any, and act thereafter.
OA is disposed of with above directions. No order as to costs.