Disciplinary recovery for perpetuated error, without loss to exchequer, is illegal.

The applicant, Sri Antaryami Behera, challenged a punishment involving the recovery of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority.

While serving as ADPS, RO, Berhampur, a charge memo dated 20.03.2019 was issued under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The charge alleged that due to his incorrect maintenance of the GDS register and gradation list, one Shri Niranjan Mohanty, GDSBPM, Tangana BO, was not discharged from engagement on 24.07.2015 and continued until 31.07.2018, leading to an overpayment of Rs. 249,860/-.

The applicant submitted a defense stating he had not prepared the gradation list corrected up to 31.07.2015, having joined as SPOs Mayurbhanj on 13.05.2015 and being relieved on 20.11.2015, while the said list was issued on 26.11.2015.

The respondents contended that the applicant, during his tenure from 14.05.2015 to 20.11.2015 as Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj Division, Baripada, was responsible for maintaining the gradation list of GDS employees and ensuring timely discharge as per DGP&T letter dated 08.12.1983.

They argued that due to his non-maintenance and wrong entry of date of birth in the gradation list, Shri Mohanty was not discharged in time.

The applicant countered that previous gradation lists from 2009 and 2012, and the GDS register, contained the same date of birth and appointment date for Shri Mohanty.

1. Whether the charge memo dated 20.03.2019 and the appellate authority's rejection order dated 04.05.2020 are illegal and bad in law.

2. Whether the punishment order dated 09.05.2019, imposing a recovery of Rs. 20,000/-, is bad in law and inoperative.

3. Whether the applicant can be held solely responsible for the incorrect entry leading to the overstayal of Shri Mohanty, given the history of the mistake and the timing of the gradation list issuance.

The Tribunal considered Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and imposition of minor penalties.

It also referred to the DGP&T letter dated 08.12.1983, which emphasizes the maintenance of registers for GDS employees containing dates of birth, appointment, and superannuation, and the requirement for appointing authorities to inform employees six months in advance of their superannuation.

The court noted that the applicant's tenure as Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj Division, Baripada, was from 14.05.2015 to 20.11.2015.

Shri Mohanty was due to be discharged on 24.07.2016, approximately eight months after the applicant was relieved from his post.

Although the gradation/seniority list (corrected up to 31.07.2015) was prepared during the applicant's tenure, it was issued on 26.11.2015, after he had been transferred.

The Tribunal emphasized that the officer who signed and issued the documents should have verified all facts, thereby sharing responsibility.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the mistake in Shri Mohanty's date of birth and date of appointment seemed to have been present since 2009, as evident from Annexure A/5 and was also recorded in the GDS register, indicating a perpetuated error rather than one solely attributable to the applicant.

The court also noted the disciplinary authority's admission that the action did not lead to any loss to the government exchequer.

Given these facts, the court found it unreasonable to hold the applicant solely responsible.

It directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 20,000/- recovered from the applicant's salary within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.