Union Of India & Others vs Shri Nagendra Pal Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 5114 Del

*             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.

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.

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

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

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'