Karnataka High Court
N Rajaseharaiah vs Food Corporation Of India on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
WP No. 44738 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 44738 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
N. RAJASEKHARAIAH
S/O NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
C/O MANJUNATHASWAMY NILAYA,
HOSAHALLI, GOLLARAPALYA,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BANGALORE-560091
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
DISTRICT OFFICE, KRPG COMPLEX,
VIJINAPURA, BANGALORE-560016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA MANAGER.
Digitally
2. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
signed by REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.10,
SUMA
Location:
EAST END MAIN ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK,
HIGH JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (KAR)
3. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE, NO.3,
HADDOWS ROAD,
CHENNAI-600006.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
WP No. 44738 of 2012
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
NO.VIG.32[2]/MEDICAL/1/2010-11 DATED 31.12.2010 [ANNEXURE -
E] AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.12.2010
passed by respondent No.1 imposing a penalty of censure for
recovery of Rs.1,24,396/- from the terminal benefits of the
petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated
06.08.2011 passed by respondent No.2 by which, the appeal
filed by him was rejected. He is also aggrieved by the order
dated 26.07.2012 passed by respondent No.3 by which the
petition to review the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2
was rejected.
2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent
No.1 - Corporation during the year 1976 and retired from
service with effect from 30.10.2010. The petitioner contends
that when he received his retirement benefits, he was surprised
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
to note that a sum of Rs.1,24,396/- was recovered from it on
the ground that the petitioner had wrongly claimed
reimbursement of medical bills for himself and his spouse by
producing documents that were not valid. The petitioner
contends that he and his wife were diagnosed with diabetes
and hypertension since 01.12.2006 and he and his wife were
claiming reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by them.
The petitioner contended that on production of necessary
documents, respondent No.1 used to reimburse the medical
bills claimed by him. When things stood thus, the respondent
No.1 issued a Memorandum dated 16.07.2010 calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why action should not be initiated
against him on the ground that the "Prolonged Disease
Certificates" enclosed with the medical bills for the period from
08.09.2009 to 07.10.2009 for himself and from 08.09.2009 to
07.10.2009 for his wife, were not signed by the competent
HOD at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru. The
petitioner replied to the said notice on 26.07.2010. However,
respondent No.1 not satisfied with the reply, issued a
Memorandum dated 30.10.2010 proposing to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Regulation
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
60 of FCI Staff Regulation for contravening Articles 31, 32, 73
(2A). An Article of Charges was enclosed with it, which is
extracted below:
"ARTICLE I
Shri. N.Rajasekaraiah, AG I [D], presently
working at FSD, KRPG of FCI, District Office,
Bangalore has failed to maintain absolute integrity
and devotion to duty and has acted in a manner
unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation in as
much as he has submitted forty four Medical Bills for
treatment undertaken as outpatient for himself and
his dependents without any valid documents for
personal gains.
ARTICLE II
The aforesaid four bills presented by
Shri.N.Rajasekaraiah, AG I [D], found on further
verification to be supported by prolonged illness
certificate signed by a Medical Officer who is not the
authorized HOD of Bowring and Lady Curzon
Hospital, Bangalore as was subsequently ascertained
on inquiry with the said Hospital and thus
Shri.N.Rajasekaraiah, AG I [D], has deliberately
misled the Corporation by producing the aforesaid
invalid/dubious documents for his personal gains of
Rs 1,24,396 [Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand
three hundred and ninety six only] being the amount
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
paid to him towards his medical claims for the
aforesaid four medical bills as per the details in the
annexure."
3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Article of
Charges on 12.11.2010. The respondent No.1, not satisfied by
the reply to the Article of Charges, passed an order dated
31.12.2010 "censuring" the petitioner and directed recovery of
Rs.1,24,396/-. The petitioner contends that the penalty
imposed upon him was without granting an opportunity to
establish his innocence and respondent No.1 had passed an
order, without following the due process and without complying
the principles of natural justice, in as much as documents that
were not furnished to the petitioner were relied on to hold that
the charges framed were proved. He contended that
respondent No.1 never insisted upon such OPD slips in the
previous years when the medical claims were reimbursed and
therefore, the petitioner was under the bonafide impression
that the documents furnished were sufficient. He contended
that the respondent No.1 after reimbursing the bills, had for the
first time, insisted upon OPD slips issued by the concerned
hospital for getting reimbursement of the medical claim. He
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
claimed that after the medical expenses were reimbursed, he
destroyed all the OPD slips and was in position to produce
them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an
appeal before respondent No.2, who also rejected the appeal
on the ground that the contention raised by the petitioner was
not justified. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed
review petition before the reviewing authority, which too was
dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner and his wife were diagnosed with diabetes
and hypertension and were on treatment since 01.12.2006.
She contends that from the year 2006 till the year 2009, the
medical bills submitted by the petitioner for himself and his
wife were reimbursed from time to time. She submits that at no
point of time, respondent No.1 insisted upon the production of
certificate issued by HOD of the Bowring and Lady Curzon
Hospital. She submitted that after the bills submitted by the
petitioner were reimbursed, OPD slips were destroyed as they
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
were of no use. She submits that even on the previous
occasion, respondent No.1 never insisted for production of OPD
slips to claim reimbursement. She contends that respondent
No.1 without even conducting a semblance of enquiry
proceeded to pass order directing recovery of Rs.1,24,396/-
from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. She submits that
if an enquiry was conducted, the petitioner would have
established the standard practice followed for reimbursement of
medical bills, not only in his case but in the case of several
others who claimed medical reimbursement. She therefore,
submits that the impugned order of censure and recovery, is
improper and prays that the same be interfered with.
6. The respondents have filed the statement of
objections contending that the petitioner and his wife were
suffering from diabetes and hypertension and the petitioner
was claiming medical reimbursement for the expenses incurred
for himself and his dependant/wife from 01.12.2006 and from
18.10.2008 respectively. The petitioner had claimed
reimbursement of Rs.1,24,396/- by submitting 44 medical bills
and claimed that he and his wife were treated as outpatients at
Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital from 08.09.2009 to
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
07.10.2009. However, the bills submitted by the petitioner
were found invalid and therefore, the respondent No.1 imposed
penalty of censure and recovery of the reimbursed amount.
The respondents contended that as per the Circular issued by
the Zonal Office of the respondents dated 31.05.2004, the
employees claiming medical reimbursements were required to
produce medical bills and a "prolonged disease certificate"
signed by the HOD of the hospital concerned on an official
letterhead along with OPD slips for sanctioning the
reimbursement. In the present case, it is contended that, the
respondent No.1 had sanctioned reimbursement of the medical
expenses incurred by the petitioner towards treatment of
diabetes and hypertension for himself and his wife. On
examination of the documents, the respondent No.1 found that
the claim was not supported by either OPD slips or a
"prolonged disease certificate" signed by the HOD of the
concerned hospital but had produced a "prolonged disease
certificate" issued by the doctor who treated them. In fact,
Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital vide its letter dated
03.05.2010 had stated that Dr. S.T. Sridhar, who had certified
that the petitioner and his wife were suffering from the disease
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
and had prescribed medicines for the petitioner and his wife,
had refused to certify the signature found on the certificate
issued to the petitioner. It also stated that Dr. S.T. Sridhar was
not the HOD, who was competent to issue medical certificate
for prolonged diseases. The letter also indicated that the
prescription given on the letterhead of the hospital was not by
HOD in his official capacity. It was also confirmed that the
hospital had issued OPD slips for every consultation/treatment
undertaken. It is contended that after a show-cause notice was
issued, the petitioner submitted a reply, following which, Article
of Charges was issued on 30.10.2010. The petitioner
submitted his reply to the Article of Charges. During
investigation, the disciplinary authority of the respondents
found the claim of the petitioner to be dubious and therefore,
disciplinary action was taken and an order dated 31.12.2010
was passed to recover a sum of Rs.1,24,396/-. It is therefore,
contended that there is no error committed by the respondent
No.1 in imposing penalty and directing recovery from the
retired benefits of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed
the detailed written arguments wherein it is contended that
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (henceforth
referred to as 'Regulations, 1971') prescribed procedure for
imposing minor penalties. He contended that there is
difference between procedure for imposing major penalty and
minor penalty. It is claimed that under Regulation 58,
procedure is prescribed for imposing major penalties, while
under Regulation 60, procedure is prescribed for imposing
minor penalties. It is contended that in the present case, the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner was a minor penalty of
censure and recovery and therefore, the disciplinary authority
proceeded under Regulation 60(1)(b). It is contended that the
respondents were not required to conduct regular enquiry as
contemplated under Regulation 58 in view of the discretion
vested in the disciplinary authority under Regulation 60(1)(b).
In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India,
Hyderabad and others vs. A. Prahalada Rao and another
[(2001) 1 SCC 165], where it was held as follows:-
"In our view, on the basis of the allegation
that Food Corporation of India is misusing its power
of imposing minor penalties, the Regulation cannot
be interpreted contrary to its language. Regulation
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
60(1)(b) mandates the disciplinary authority to form
its opinion whether it is necessary to hold enquiry in
a particular case or not. But that would not mean
that in all cases where employee disputes his
liability, a full-fledged enquiry should be held.
Otherwise, the entire purpose of incorporating
summary procedure for imposing minor penalties
would be frustrated. If the discretion given under
Regulation 60(1)(b) is misused or is exercised in
arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee to
challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It
is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether
regular departmental enquiry as contemplated
under Regulation 58 for imposing major penalty
should be followed or not. This discretion cannot be
curtailed by interpretation which is contrary to the
language used. Further, Regulation 60(2) itself
provides that in a case if it is proposed to withhold
increments of pay and such withholding of
increments is likely to affect adversely the amount
of retirement benefits payable to employee and in
such other cases as mentioned therein, the
disciplinary authority shall hold enquiry in the
manner laid down in Regulation 58 before making
any order imposing any such penalty. Hence, it is
apparent that High Court erroneously interpreted
the regulation by holding that once the employee
denies the charge, it is incumbent upon the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
authority to conduct enquiry contemplated for
imposing major penalty. It also erred in holding that
where employee denies that loss is caused to the
Corporation either by his negligence or breach of
order, such enquiry should be held. It is settled law
that Court's power of judicial review in such cases is
limited and Court can interfere where the authority
held the enquiry proceedings in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry and imposing punishment or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence or is such that no
reasonable person would have ever reached. As per
the Regulation, holding of regular departmental
enquiry is a discretionary power of the disciplinary
authority which is to be exercised by considering the
facts of each case and if it is misused or used
arbitrarily, it would be subject to judicial review."
8. It is also contended that in similar case, decided in
W.P.No.10668/2014 [2017 KHC 27884], this Court had held
that,
"8. .. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had
submitted a medical certificate signed by Dr. M.V.
Prasanna Kumar Senior Specialist. Thus, the
petitioner did not submit a medical certificate
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
issued by the Head of the Department. ...A bare
perusal of the records clearly reveals that the
petitioner did not produce copies of the OPD slips
before the Disciplinary Authority. ....Therefore,
none of the OPD slips were submitted for the
prolonged period of illness claimed by the
petitioner. Since the requirement of law has not
been met, the respondents were justified in
holding that the petitioner has wrongly been
reimbursed an amount of Rs.68,642/-.
Therefore, the petitioner has committed a
misconduct."
9. It is also contended that this Court should refrain
from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, if the procedure prescribed under the
Regulations are complied with. It is contended that since the
petitioner is visited with a minor punishment of censure and
recovery, punishment imposed is neither disproportionate to
the alleged misconduct and therefore, does not warrant
interference by this Court. With these and other ancillary
contentions, the respondents tried to contend that the
punishment of censure and recovery is just and fair and does
not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that if this Court were come to the conclusion that the
disciplinary authority did not follow the procedure in not giving
an opinion then, it is incumbent upon this Court to remit the
case back to the disciplinary authority to conduct proceedings
afresh. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dipak
Kumar Das vs. Food Corporation of India and others
[2015 SCC Online Cal. 1474] where it was held,
"As a consequence of the order of punishment
being required to be set aside, the departmental
proceedings are set back to the time immediately
after the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet. The
disciplinary authority should now apply its mind and
record a written opinion as to whether the
protracted procedure under Regulation 58 should be
followed in this case or the charges against the
petitioner should be decided in a summary manner.
The objective reasons in support of the opinion
should be reflected, though the opinion need not be
communicated to the petitioner. Upon such opinion
being formed, the petitioner will be informed and
the departmental proceedings will continue
thereafter in accordance with law and culminate in a
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
prompt decision to be rendered by the disciplinary
authority."
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and his wife
were suffering from diabetes and hypertension. It is also not in
dispute that medical bills submitted by the petitioner from time
to time were reimbursed by the respondents. The bills
submitted by the petitioner for the period from 08.09.2009 to
07.10.2009 were reimbursed after 07.10.2009. Later,
respondent No.1 seems to have realized that the bills submitted
by the petitioner were dubious and therefore, issued a
Memorandum dated 16.07.2010 to "furnish reasons for
misleading the Corporation through such questionable Medical
Bill claim with ulterior motive to get undue monetary gain."
The petitioner replied to this Memorandum on 26.07.2010
which was again followed by a Memorandum dated 30.10.2010
issued by respondent No.1 proposing to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner for the misconduct namely,
"misleading the Corporation by producing dubious and invalid
documents for the aforesaid medical claims for personal gains
which is an act of serious misconduct." Along with this
Memorandum, the Article of Charges was also enclosed.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
12. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Article of
Charges on 12.11.2010. The respondent No.1, thereafter
passed an order dated 31.12.2010 holding that,
"Whereas on examining all the medical
documents submitted by the Charged official while
claiming reimbursement of their medical expenses,
and on conducting discreet inquiry with Bowring
Hospital the following observations were made by the
Disciplinary Authority.
1. For every treatment/consultation undertaken
at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital,
Bangalore OPD Slips are issued by the
Hospital Authorities which should be
produced along with the medical claim for
getting reimbursement.
2. The Medical Superintendent of Bowring &
Lady Curzon Hospitals, Bangalore vide his
letter No.B & LCH/PS/52/10-11 dated
05.05.2010 in support letter No.RMO/01/10-
11 dated 03.05.2010 of Resident Medical
Officer, has confirmed that Dr. Sridhar who
had certified the disease of the Charged
Officer was not an HOD and the prescription
given on letterhead of the Hospital is not in
his official capacity and the Hospital has
issued OPD slips for every
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
consultation/treatment undertaken in their
hospital.
3. It has also been confirmed during
investigation that Dr. S.T. Sridhar who had
certified the disease and prescribed the
medicines was of the habit of issuing any
certificate on payment to the tune of
eligibility of the employees.
4. Moreover the signature appeared on the
prescription and other documents enclosed
in support of the claims in the name of Dr.
S.T. Sridhar are found differ from the
original signature which the investigating
squad obtained from him in person.
5. As per Zonal Office Finance division letter
No.C8[13]/04-05/ZO dated 31.05.2004 and
in reference to HQrs circular No.340 of 1989-
WRC/17/8/89 dated 12.12.1989, the Cat-III
& IV employees are to be reimbursed the
medical expenditure in respect of prolonged
diseases on production of requisite medical
certificate issued by the Head of the Dept og
Govt. Hospital on the OPD slip of the
respective Govt. Hospital only in the official
capacity not in his personal capacity in their
private clinic/hospital.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
6. The claims preferred by the CO have not
been supported with OPD slips supplied by
the Hospital Authorities on every occasion of
their consultations/visit at the Hospital.
7. The claims preferred by the Charged official
were found incomplete in respect of Doctor's
name and his registration Number except the
signature of the Doctor said to be Dr. S.T.
Sridhar.
8. All the medicines were reportedly purchased
from "Lakshmi Pharma, Vijinapura,
Bangalore" under the medical prescription of
Dr. Shivanna in a stereotype manner.
9. The Charged Official has claimed and
reimbursement as sum of Rs.1,24,396/-
from the Corporation in producing such
invalid/dubious certificates and prescription
in 44 occasions."
13. Based upon this finding, the respondent No.1 in
exercise of the powers conferred vide Regulation 56 read with
Regulation 54 of the Regulations, 1971 imposed penalty of
censure and ordered recovery of Rs.1,24,396/- from out of the
terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. It is therefore,
clear that the respondent No.1 did not conduct an enquiry
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
before condemning the petitioner of being guilty of the
misconduct alleged.
14. In order to understand the purport of the
Regulations relied upon by the respondents, Regulation 60
deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties and the
same is extracted below:-
"60. Procedure for imposing minor
penalties:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-
regulation (3) of Regulation 59, no order imposing
on an employee any of the penalties specified in
clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54 shall be made
except after:
(a) informing the employee in writing of the
proposal to take action against him and
of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour on which it is proposed to
be taken, and giving him a reasonable
opportunity of making such
representation as he may wish to make
against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid
down in Sub-regulation (3) to (23) of
Regulation 58, in every case in which the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
disciplinary authority is of the opinion
that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any,
submitted by the employee under clause
(a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held
under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (b) of Sub-regulation (1), if in a case it is
proposed, after considering the representation, if
any, made by the employee under clause (a) of the
sub-regulation, to withhold increment of pay and
such withholding of increments is likely to affect
adversely the amount of retirement benefits payable
to the employee or to withhold increments of a pay
for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold
increments of pay with cumulative effect for any
period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid
down in Sub-regulation (3) to (23) of Regulation 58
before making any order imposing on the employee
any such penalty.
(3) The record of the proceedings in such
cases shall include:
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
(i) a copy of the intimation to the
employee of the proposal to take action
against him,
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations
of misconduct or misbehavior delivered
to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the
inquiry;
(v) the findings on each imputation of
misconduct or misbehavior; and
(vi) the orders on the case together with the
reasons therefore."
15. A perusal of Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates that
whenever disciplinary authority is of the opinion that an enquiry
is necessary then enquiry shall be done in the manner laid
down in sub-regulation (3) to (23) of Regulation 58.
16. It is the case of the respondents that respondent
No.1 did not consider it necessary for conducting an enquiry
and therefore, proceeded to pass an order of penalty. The
disciplinary authority was oblivious of the fact that the medical
reimbursement claimed by the petitioner was already made and
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
therefore, it was not expected of the petitioner to retain OPD
slips. The disciplinary authority was also oblivious of the fact
that the petitioner and his wife were suffering from diabetes
and hypertension and that they were on medication. Therefore,
to consider that the entire medical bills submitted by the
petitioner for the period 08.09.2009 to 07.10.2009 for himself
and for his wife as dubious, is highly unjustified. It was
incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to cross-verify the
bills submitted by the petitioner for the earlier years when
reimbursement was allowed and thereafter, come to the
conclusion that the bills submitted by the petitioner were
genuine or dubious. For this purpose, the disciplinary authority
must have applied his mind rather than rubbishing the bills
submitted by the petitioner on the ground that it was not
accompanied by the "Prolonged Disease Certificate" signed by
HOD and that OPD slips were not furnished by the petitioner.
The petitioner had submitted the "Prolonged Disease
Certificate" signed by the doctor who treated him and his wife.
There is no evidence to disbelieve this certificate. The reliance
placed on a letters dated 05.05.2010 and 03.05.2010 that Dr.
S.T. Sridhar, the doctor who treated the petitioner was not the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
HOD does not make the certificate or the prescription and bills
dubious. The respondent No.1 must have verified the standard
practice adopted while reimbursing the medical bills and must
have furnished copies of the letters received from the Medical
Superintendent of Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, to the
petitioner to furnish his comments.
17. No doubt, under the Regulations, 1971, the
discretion to either conduct an enquiry or not to, is upon the
disciplinary authority while imposing minor penalties. However,
such discretion ought to be exercised judiciously and the order
of penalty must demonstrate the application of mind. Even if
the opinion that may be formed by the disciplinary authority is
not communicated to an employee but when it is subject to
judicial review, the respondents are bound to satisfy that
opinion was formed on certain parameters indicating that there
was no necessity to hold an enquiry. In the case on hand, the
respondents have merely issued an Article of Charges, which
was replied by the petitioner and based on the subjective
satisfaction have proceeded to pass a penalty of censure and
recovery of medical bills reimbursed by the respondents.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food
Corporation of India and others vs. Sarat Chandra
Goswami [(2014) 13 SCC 211] held after considering its
earlier decision in the case of A. Prahalada Rao, supra, relied
upon by the respondent as follows:-
"9. On a perusal of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, we find that he has taken note
of the fact that there was no expression or formation
of opinion. He has further recorded that the learned
counsel for the Corporation had conceded that there
was nothing to show that the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director who had made the final order had
recorded any opinion in writing before making the
final order to the effect that there was no need to
hold a regular inquiry. From the principle stated by
this Court in A. Prahalada Rao's case it is quite limpid
that though in all cases where the employees disputes
his liability, a full-fledged enquiry is not expected to
be held as that would frustrate the purpose of
interpreting the summary procedure for imposing
minor penalties, yet the discretion conferred under
Regulation 60(1)(b), if exercised in a arbitrary
manner, it is open to the employee to challenge the
same before the appropriate forum. The Court had
further opined that the Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates
the disciplinary authority to form its opinion whether
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
it is necessary to hold an inquiry in a particular case
or not."
19. Therefore, it can safely be held that the respondent
No.1 before passing an order of censure and directing the
recovery of the medical bills reimbursed failed to form an
opinion as to whether there was any need to conduct an
enquiry. It is also not known whether the procedure that is
insisted upon by the respondent No.1 in the present
circumstances was ever insisted by the respondents while
reimbursing the bills submitted by the petitioner for the earlier
years. Therefore, the impugned order of censure and directing
the recovery of medical bills reimbursed from the retirement
benefit of the petitioner is not justified and consequently,
warrants interference.
20. The contention of the respondents that the case
requires to be remanded, does not appeal to this Court for two
reasons:
(i) the petitioner is admittedly not in
possession of the OPD slips since he has destroyed
them after the medical bills were reimbursed.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31368
(ii) the petitioner has retired from service in
the year 2010 and 14 years have passed by and
therefore, no useful purpose would be served in
remitting the case back to the respondents for
reconsideration.
21. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1 and
the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by respondent No.2 as well
as the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by respondent No.3 are
set aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to refund
Rs.1,24,396/- to the petitioner within three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which,
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
deduction till payment shall be paid thereon and recovered
from the person responsible for the delay.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
