At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
By, CHAIRMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. N. NEIHSIAL
By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
For the Applicant: H.K. Das, U. Pathak, D.J. Das, Advocates. For the Respondents : S.K. Ghosh, Addl. CGSC.
Nekkhomang Neihsial, Member (A).
1. The applicant filed this OA, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order No. Staff/9-313/2018 dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure-A/2) issued by the Appellate Authority, as well as the impugned order under No. F 7-3/16- 17/Misc./Discy/B. Borah dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure-A/1) issued by the Disciplinary Authority. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to refund the recovery to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- made from his salary with all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant was working as Stock Postal Assistant No. II in the office of North Eastern Stamp Depot, Guwahati. During the period from 26.03.2012 to 17.08.2015, stationary worth of Rs. 2,51,970/- has been destroyed by termites due to non-spray of Antitermites. After initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the respondents imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and part recovery of the cost of destroyed stationary to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- recoverable in 10 (ten) equal instalments vide order dated 12.12.2017 under No. F 7-3/16- 17/Misc/Discy/B. Borah (Annexure-A/1), against the applicant. He made an appeal on 08.01.2018 against the said penalty order. The Appellate Authority, vide detailed order dated 18.07.2018 under No. Staff/9- 313/2018 (Annexure-A/2) upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority but reduced the quantum of recovery to be made from the applicant from Rs. 90000/- to Rs. 60000/- in ten equal instalments.
3. Sri H.K. Das, learned counsel for the applicant; strongly argued that his client was never given the charge of handling the file for the spraying of Antitermites. He has also pointed out that in the work distribution sheet, signature of the applicant was not found though as per Memorandum of distribution work, the Anti-termite file has to be handled by the SPA-II i.e. the applicant. This very item was not given to him as hand written remark of SPA-I have been indicated against this particular responsibility at Sl. No. 16 of the items work to be handled by SPA-I issued in the office order dated 20.03.2015 under No. NESD/Dist/Work/94 (Annexure-A/26).
4. Sri S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents states that the prescribed procedure was followed, and the penalty commensurate with the misconduct was imposed. 5. It is seen from the records that the applicant was entrusted with the duty to get the anti-termite spray made, but he failed to do so. We cannot interfere with such finding of facts. In the speaking order of the Appellate Authority at para 5(iii), it has been indicated that the extract of MDW issued by Superintendent of NESD was handed over to SPA-II on 24.03.2008 under clear receipt. This aspect has been repeated at para 5(vii). It has also been brought out at para 19 of the speaking order that quarterly spraying of anti-termites was entrusted to SPA-II though SPA-I and SPA-II may be the joint custodian o
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
f the strong room. 5. We do not see any justified reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as modified by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the O.A. is hereby dismissed. The interim order of this Tribunal dated 22.11.2018 also stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.<