Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 348 (GAU)

DEVIKA MEDHI v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-03-20

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati whereby it has dismissed petitioner’s OA No.040/00393/2015. 3. Between the period 1.9.2004 and 29.6.2005, the petitioner worked as PA, IR Branch, O/o the SSPOs, Guwahati Division, Guwahati. And during this period, she did not preserve the Inspection Report of Singra Rajabari BO and also failed to take any follow up action to collect the Inspection Report. She did not even preserve the Inspection Registers of the O/o SSPO, Guwahati Division. This lapse on the part of petitioner resulted into commission of huge fraud to the tune of Rs.2,17,422.23 by Ranjit Rabha, GDS BPM, Singra Rajapara BO. In the result, the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 12.12.2013 together with the statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour. In defence, the petitioner submitted her representation on 17.1.2014 and considering the same, the SSPO, Guwahati Division, vide order dated 27.1.2014, imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.4000/- in eight equal installments from her pay and allowances beginning from February, 2014. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal on 26.2.2014. The appellate authority, after scrutiny of the related documents, held that punishment awarded to the petitioner was too lenient and it required to be enhanced upto recovery of Rs.20,000/- from her pay and allowances in eight equal installments. The petitioner was, therefore, served with a show-cause notice against which she submitted her representation on 11.9.2014. In the representation, the petitioner essentially requested for being let off without any modification/enhancement of the punishment. The appellate authority, however, disagreed with the petitioner and having regard to the fact that because of her negligence, the Government suffered a staggering loss of Rs.2,17,422.23, enhanced the penalty from Rs.4000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner then filed OA No.040/00393/2015 before the Tribunal which by the impugned order has set aside the enhancement of penalty from 4000/- to 20,000/-. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that she was not liable for penalty of even Rs.4000/-. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no merit in this petition as before the appellate authority the petitioner had agreed for being let off with penalty of Rs.4000/- only. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that she was not liable for penalty of even Rs.4000/-. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no merit in this petition as before the appellate authority the petitioner had agreed for being let off with penalty of Rs.4000/- only. Also having regard to the staggering loss caused to the Government because of the negligence of petitioner penalty of Rs.4000/- is on the lower side. Not only this, although the Tribunal set aside the order of enhancement of penalty on 20.12.2015, the present petition has been filed after one year, for which, no explanation is given for the delay. For these reasons, we find no good ground to admit the petition. It is accordingly dismissed summarily.