The High Court · 2013
Case Details
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner For the Respondents : - Mr. Shresth Gautam, Adv. … : - Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv. … 13/30.07.2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been imposed punishment of reduction of pay scale to one stage below at Rs. 4525/- from Rs. 4700/- in terms of Rule -23(e) of H.E.C. Employees Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 1981. By the impugned order, the loss of Rs. 1,47,089.83/- which was caused to the Corporation on account of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, has been directed to be recovered from him. While he was Junior Manager, he was made Section In- charge of Final Settlement Cell in the respondent-Corporation where cases relating to assessment and computation of the final amount were to be processed under voluntary retirement scheme and recommended onward for payment to retiring employee concerned. The Cell itself was created to process such claim of the employees, who were in regular cadre as per the VRS Scheme contained at Annexure-2. The coverage of the scheme was in respect of the permanent employees of the corporation except those under any bond. The list of 13 such employees, who were given excess payment on account of miscalculation of their final settlement amount, treating their initial date of appointment from the date they came in muster roll cadre, is enclosed as Annexure-3. The resultant loss was to the extent of Rs. 1,47,089.83/- found in preliminary enquiry, which is contained at Annexure-3, wherein observations were also made against the Section In-charge, who was the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was proceeded against for the alleged misconduct for which charge-sheet was issued vide Annexure-4. Names of 13 persons were also indicated in the statement of imputation of allegation in support of the articles of charges. The petitioner was asked to file show cause as to why he should not be accountable for misconduct under the relevant Rules 5(1), 5(5), 5(9) and 5(6) read with Rule 4(i), 4(ii) and 4(iii) of the HEC Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1981. List of document was also enclosed to the articles of charges. The petitioner admittedly participated in the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.01.2005, which is annexed as
Decision
Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty for the alleged charges and his explanation was not accepted. Thereafter, the impugned order dated
06.07.2005, Annexure-6, has been passed reducing him to one stage below at Rs. 4525/- from Rs. 4700/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-175-7150/-. The amount of loss of Rs. 1,47,089.83/- has also been ordered to be recovered. According to the petitioner, in preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was in fact exonerated from the alleged charges. The petitioner was not the only one of the personnel in the final settlement cell in which the forms were processed at different levels, therefore he alone should not be responsible for the loss. According to him, the loss has also been subsequently recovered from the employees, who obtained VRS Scheme. However, such statement is not substantiated by any materials on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable on the facts and in law. The punishment is also disproportionate when the amount is said to have been recovered already. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and submits that under the scheme of voluntary retirement floated vide Circular No. 16/2001 dated 29.11.2001, only permanent employee of the corporation except those under bond were covered for the said purpose. At the relevant time the corporation was sick industrial undertaking. For the said purpose specifically a final settlement cell was created, the petitioner being Section In-charge of the said cell and in the capacity of Junior Manager could not escape from his responsibility. He has not properly scrutinized the application forms and also not monitored the same which resulted into loss to the corporation. He submits that preliminary enquiry does not exonerate the petitioner. He further submitted that the calculation contained at Annexure-3 to the writ petition does not show that the amount has been recovered from the person concerned. The misconduct was not an individual instance, but has been found to be repetitive and committed in respect of 13 such employees in processing and payment to 13 such employees. In such circumstances, the punishment imposed is in fact lenient as this is a case of loss of public money. The petitioner was holding the position of Section In- charge for computation of the fund settlement amount of the employees of the respondent-corporation. The writ petition is without merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The appellate authority has also not found any infirmity in the original order and the same has also been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the relevant materials on records including the impugned order dated 06.07.2005. The aforesaid scheme was in vogue at the relevant point of time in the year 2001 to allow voluntary retirement to such interested employees, in circumstances when the corporation was under sickness. The employees covered under the scheme were only permanent employees. Though the forms, which were meant for making such applications may have referred muster roll also at column 5(a), but muster roll employee in any case were not entitled for such benefit. Only permanent employees were entitled for the same. Had the calculation been made on the basis of date of coming into regular cadre in respect of such employee, such resultant loss would not have been caused. In the preliminary enquiry it has been found that the petitioner, who was Section In-charge, was equally responsible for the same. The departmental proceeding thereafter, has been conducted after issuance of statement of imputation of allegation and list of documents were also furnished to the petitioner. He duly participated in the enquiry. Three management witnesses were also examined while delinquent did not examine any witness. The Inquiry Officer, came to a finding of guilt of the petitioner. In such circumstances after taking into account, the findings in the enquiry report as also the reply of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has held that he could not have escaped responsibility of the guilt of misconduct. He has however been imposed minor punishment of reduction of pay scale to one stage below in the time scale of pay. The petitioner was in a relationship of faith with the employer while dealing with the financial matter. He has, however, been given a lenient punishment in such circumstances. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner, at the end submits that although the petitioner has retired, he has not been paid any post retiral benefits. However, this is not subject matter of the writ petition. If the petitioner has not been paid post retiral dues after realization of loss as directed by the order of punishment, he is at liberty to approach the respondent for the same, which may be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Kamlesh/ (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)