Penalty set aside where overlapping medical claims involved actual expenses and no established mala fide intent.

The applicant, a High Skilled Fitter employed at Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur, was charged under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for submitting medical reimbursement bills from Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre and Janjyoti Eye Hospital for overlapping periods during the treatment of his mother.

A medical advance of ₹10,000 had been sanctioned for treatment at Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre, while no advance had been sanctioned for the treatment at Janjyoti Eye Hospital.

Following a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect for one year. On appeal, the penalty was modified to reduction of pay by one stage in the existing pay band for one year with cumulative effect.

The applicant challenged the modified penalty before the Tribunal.

Whether the charge of submitting two medical reimbursement bills for overlapping periods established misconduct warranting disciplinary penalty?

Whether the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage with cumulative effect was justified in the circumstances of the case?

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential relief after the penalty order was set aside?

The proceedings were governed by Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes the procedure for imposing a major penalty through a departmental inquiry.

The Tribunal applied the principle that disciplinary findings and punishment must be assessed in light of the actual facts, the employee’s conduct, and the surrounding circumstances.

It further considered whether the alleged irregularity demonstrated mala fide conduct and whether the penalty was justified where the employee had actually incurred the medical expenses and the advance amount had been recovered.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had submitted two bills relating to overlapping periods and that the medical advance had been sanctioned for treatment at Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre.

However, it also noted that the applicant had not taken any advance for the treatment at Janjyoti Eye Hospital and had in fact incurred the claimed medical expenses. The ₹10,000 advance had already been recovered.

The Tribunal further observed that the claim section ought to have rejected the second bill if it was impermissible under the applicable rules, and that the respondents had not shown that they had verified the overlapping indoor-treatment claims with Janjyoti Eye Hospital.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal found no mala fide intention in the submission of the two bills and considered the imposition of the penalty unsustainable, notwithstanding the concurrent findings of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and Appellate Authority.

Since the penalty had already been undergone, the respondents were directed to grant the applicant consequential relief within 90 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.