* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13717/2009
% Date of Decision: 09.12.2009
Union of India & Others .... Petitioners
Through Mr.R.V. Sinha and Mr.A.S. Singh,
Advocates
Versus
Shri Nagendra Pal Singh .... Respondent
Through Mr.Imran Khan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
* The respondent had challenged the punishment order dated 26th September, 2007 imposing minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.2.00 lakh from his pay in 67 monthly installments i.e 66 installments of Rs.3,000/- each and 67th installment of Rs.2,000/- and the dismissal of his appeal by the petitioner, in OA No.2521 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi titled Nagendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and others which was decided on 16th June, 2009.
W.P. (C.) No.13717/2009 Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal had upheld the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, however, had quashed the imposition of the penalty of recovery of Rs.2.00 lakh from the pay of the respondent, which is challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition.
The Tribunal had noted that the fraud was committed by SPM Daya Ram Singh Rawal, inter alia, by using certain passbooks which were not sent by the respondent. It was also noted that the respondents failure to obtain the copy of the invoice sent and to paste the same in the office guard file did not have any bearing on the fraud committed by SPM Daya Ram Singh Rawal. The Tribunal has also considered that the statement of Daya Ram Singh Rawal was obtained at the back of the respondent, which was relied on by the disciplinary authority against the respondent, which vitiated the order of punishment as the respondent was not confronted with the denial by the SPM Daya Ram Singh Rawal. In fact the petitioner had made inquiries to ascertain the genuineness of the designation stamp as well as the signatures of the then SPM i.e. Daya Ram Singh Rawal but the result of the said investigation was held back by the petitioner. W.P. (C.) No.13717/2009 Page 2 of 5
Considering the facts and circumstances, this cannot be disputed that the penalty of recovery of amount is not to be levied in all the cases or charges leveled under the rules, unless it can be demonstrated successfully that misconduct of the delinquent employee had resulted in pecuniary loss to the Government. The failure of the respondent in not pasting the copy of the invoice in the office guard file, cannot be the reason for the loss which has been caused to the petitioners. The said loss was caused due to the fraud committed by SPM Daya Ram Singh Rawal. It also cannot be denied that some of the passbooks involved in the fraud committed by Shri Daya Ram Singh Rawal were also not sent by the respondent.
In the circumstances, the petitioners were unable to show to the Tribunal and even before us they are unable to show that there was a direct link between the said misconduct lapse of the respondent and the pecuniary loss caused to the petitioners, nor has it been shown that the pecuniary loss flowed directly from the misconduct/lapse of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also unable to show as to how the alleged recovery of Rs.2.00 lakh has been imposed on the respondent.
The other significant aspect is that the disciplinary authority has also not considered as to how the misconduct/lapse on the part of the W.P. (C.) No.13717/2009 Page 3 of 5 respondent in not putting the receipt in the guard file led to pecuniary loss, on account of fraud committed by the then SPM Daya Ram Singh Rawal. This has also not been considered as to how the adherence of the relevant procedure by the respondent could have avoided the misappropriation and fraud by SPM Daya Ram Singh Rawal. The petitioners are also unable to show as to what amount had been recovered from the said Daya Ram Singh Rawal nor there is anything to show as how the amounts have been apportioned between Daya Ram Singh Rawal and the respondent.
The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the plea on behalf of the respondent that he was not duly informed of the extent of loss and the amount to be recovered from him. It was also not clearly brought out in the chargesheet that the respondent was in any way responsible for the loss to any extent, much less to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs, so that the respondent could put up his defense, nor the disciplinary authority has given any clear finding as to how the alleged misconduct has resulted in a pecuniary loss to the petitioners.
In the circumstances, the petitioners have failed to show any ground to impugn the order dated 16th June, 2009 in OA No.2521 of 2008, Nagendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and others upholding the penalty of withholding one year increment without cumulative effect W.P. (C.) No.13717/2009 Page 4 of 5 imposed on the respondent, and quashing the imposition of penalty of recovery of Rs.2.00 lakh from the pay of the respondent. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances and the writ petition is without any merit. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 09, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'Dev'
W.P. (C.) No.13717/2009 Page 5 of 5