Smt. Subhadra Devi vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—There is a finding of the Project Officer that there was no temporary embezzlement on late deposit of amounts. It is

recorded in the document (Annexure A-1) that some amount of security to be deposited by Aganwari Workers had been spent with

permission/sanction of the then C.D.P.O. pending permission of DDO Power/Budget for expenses towards office stationery and urgent needs,

which have been duly deposited after drawing of amounts from the office. There appear to be sufficient reasons explaining that the charge should

not have been brought against the petitioner. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services Rules (Punishment &

Appeal) Rules, 1987 for minor misconduct. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment

without cumulative effect on 23.8.2011 by the Director, Women and Child Development after considering the explanation/reply filed by the

petitioner. The petitioner was a Supervisor of the ICDS Project, Bahadurgarh at that time. Her appeal before the State Government against the

punishment was rejected on 2.12.2012, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is recorded in the impugned appellate

order that during the hearing, the office had apprised the appellate authority that on receipt of booking amount of Dharamshala, the same had not

been submitted by the petitioner, till the date of hearing. The Financial Commissioner acting a appellate authority has recorded as follows:

During the course of hearing, the office apprised that the receipt of booking amount of Dharamshala had not been submitted by Smt. Subhadra

Devi, Supervisor till the date of hearing and had she produced the same, the reimbursement of booking of Dharamshala would have been made at

once by the CDPO, Bahadurgarh (U) or otherwise she did not want to take the payment. Further it has also been apprised by the office that had

she wanted the payment she would not have kept the receipt with her from the year 2008 onwards to till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these disputed amounts have been reimbursed to the petitioner since they had been spent by her

from her own pocket. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, does not dispute this fact. He further submits that the petitioner had kept the security

amount of Anganwari Workers with her and had not purchased the National Saving Certificates which were required to be purchased as per

instructions of the Government dated 04.07.2007. The amount of security deposit is taken from Anganwari workers/helpers as a performance

guarantee. On the advice of the Post Master (General), Ambala Cantt., a decision was conveyed to the Government that no amount would be

accepted for deposit in any of the accounts except individual accounts. Therefore, security deposit accounts cannot be opened after issue of

notification dated 21.07.2005 by the Government of India. Resultantly, National Saving Certificates had to be purchased from Post Offices in lieu

of security of Anganwari Workers to be renewed from time to time.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record made available.

Once the amounts have been reimbursed to the petitioner, spent from her own pocket towards the security of Anganwari Workers and certain

amounts spent for purchase of office stationery etc. then those amounts have been sanctioned by the CDPO and have been paid to the petitioner

there is no intention to embezzle money. In view of this, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect does not appear

justifiable and that too on such a trivial matter duly explained. The impugned orders are therefore not legally sustainable either on principles of

justification or on proportionality. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders (P-12 & P-15) of punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority and upheld by the Financial Commissioner in appeal are set aside.

No order as to costs.