Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Urmil Shukla vs The Secretary-Cum-Director on 11 August, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1852/2006
New Delhi this the 11th day of August, 2008.
Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A)
Ms. Urmil shukla,
Supr. Gr.I,
I.C.D.S. Project,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. . Applicant
(through Sh. G.D. Bhandari, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Secretary-cum-Director,
Dept. of Social Welfare,
Govt. of NCT, GLNS Complex,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-2.
2. Smt. Rashmi Singh,
Joint Director (Vig),
GLNS Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-2.
3. Sh. A.K. Saxena,
The Supdt. (Vig),
Directorate of Social Welfare,
GNCT Old ITI Building,
KG Marg, New Delhi-1.
4. The C.D.P.O.,
ICDC Project Sangam Vihar,
D-Block Community Center,
Khan Pur New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant is seeking setting aside of the orders dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure A-12) and 20.07.2006 (Annexure A-1). By order dated 05.06.2006, Joint Director (Vig.) (Respondent No.2) directed the applicant, who was Supervisor, ICDS Project (Sangam Vihar) to deposit Rs. 50,000/- within three days of the receipt of the order, failing which she would be liable for disciplinary action. This was based on the report that having received an amount of Rs. 1,57,453/- on 20.04.2006 from the Cashier for distribution amongst the Anganwari workers and helpers, she had kept it openly on the table and was directly involved in a scuffle with Smt. Raj kumari, an Anganwari worker and others, resulting in loss of Rs. 50,000/- out of that amount, from which it was concluded that she had remained careless and negligent in handling the Government cash.
2. The applicant represented on 13.07.2006 (Annexure A-14) that she should not have been condemned unheard and under protest requested for deduction of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from her salary.
3. By order dated 20.07.2006, the Sr. Supdt. (Vig.) who is the Respondent No.3, observed that the applicant had requested for deduction of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from her salary but directed the HOO/DDO, ICDS Project, Sangam Vihar to receive Rs.5,000/- per month from the applicant on account of the loss of Rs.50,000/- instead of deduction from her salary. This amount was to be distributed among the Anganwari workers and helpers.
4. The Tribunal by order of 15.09.2006 left it open to respondents to make the deduction from the salary of the applicant.
5. The applicant informs that Anganwari workers are utilized for execution of various projects in the field of social welfare and being voluntary workers, they are paid a token amount on monthly basis, which payment is also not made very regularly, giving them cause for grievance which is exploited by their Union Professional Leaders. That she has been distributing payment to Anganwari workers and helpers as per the practice followed, by which the Cashier hands over the amount to Supervisors who make such payment personally even though it is not their job. Safety measures are inadequate and cash is kept on the person as no safe or briefcase is provided. However, the applicant has submitted that her performance throughout has been satisfactory as the record would show.
6. It has been narrated by the applicant that on 20.04.2006, an amount of Rs. 1,57,453/- was received by the applicant from the Cashier and she along with other Supervisors gathered in a room to effect payment against acquittance roll. The workers queued up before the respective Supervisors for receiving payments when all of a sudden Smt. Raj Kumari along with other workers interfered and called upon those present to accept only full payment along with arrears instead of one months payment. According to the applicant when there was no response, Smt. Raj Kumari lost her temper and physically restrained the applicant from making the payment, abused and assaulted the applicant and snatching away the polythene cash bag and also the acquittance roll tried to escape but lost grip on the bag which fell on the ground and the cash was scattered. This incident took place between 2.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. The cash when collected and counted by the cashier in the first instance, was found short by Rs.50,000/- and this shortage was also confirmed by counting before the Police later on. A report on these lines was given to the Police in writing the same day by Smt. Hem Lata, CDPO, ICDS, Sangam Vihar, signed by 8 other officials as well (Annexure A-6). The applicant being a patient of high blood pressure received medical attention at AIIMS.
7. Thereafter, the Police were requested by the applicant and also by a large number of the staff as per representations at Annexures A-7 and A-9 to investigate the matter and take action. The Police by their communication dated 28.04.2006 to the Respondent No.1 recommended departmental action in the matter stating that there were allegations and counter allegations which, inter alia, showed that there was a dispute and a scuffle took place between the applicant and Smt. Raj Kumari. The respondents set up an enquiry to look into the matter in which the applicant gave her statement on 24.06.2006 but she has complained that rest of the proceedings where other statements might have been recorded were conducted without involving her. The applicant made further protests that no FIR had been registered and she felt insecure due to threats etc. being received. The Supervisors Welfare Association also supported her case and addressed the authorities but in vain.
8. The applicant submits that in the meanwhile she was transferred to Nabi Karim Project by order of 08.06.2006 instead of any action being taken against Smt. Raj Kumari. Besides, no show cause notice was given to her so that she could have met the case of the respondents against her.
9. The applicant is aggrieved that she is facing serious civil consequences without getting adequate opportunity to be heard and without consideration of the facts of the matter. The applicant contends that no copy of the enquiry report or documents taken into account, if any, were supplied to her but she has learnt that findings were against Smt. Raj Kumari whose services were to be terminated. The conclusions & reason and the findings arrived at have not been made known but action has been taken against the applicant contrary to facts and without properly fixing responsibility thus leaving Smt. Raj Kumari untouched while making her a scapegoat in the case.
10. It is further contended that Joint Director (Vig.) (Respondent No.2) was not competent to direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 50,000/- being merely investigating agency and not the controlling authority. Besides, Sh. A.K. Saxena, the Sr. Superintendent (Vig.) and Respondent No.3, was in fact the one who was the enquiring authority and yet he has issued the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 directing Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to be received from her instead of deduction from salary.
11. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have clarified that the services of Supervisors are utilized for the disbursement of honorarium to Anganwari workers as they are in very large numbers and the Supervisors are familiar with them. The cash is actually disbursed in a Pacca building and the Supervisors can get Police protection. It is stated that Smt. Raj Kumari entered the room to hand over the acquittance roll to the Anganwari Supervisor Smt. Tahira. The applicant spoke in provocative words to Smt. Raj Kumari because of which scuffle took place and both of them were responsible for it. The transfer orders have been issued to ensure smooth administration.
12. The respondents have stated that the department had constituted an enquiry team consisting of three officers including Sh. A.K. Saxena, Sr. Supdt. (Vig.) and statements were recorded of all parties including the applicant as well as Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Tahira Khan. It is asserted that any officer can be transferred any where and the impugned orders are justified. Representation dated 20.06.2006 was found to be a delaying tactic. It was decided not to issue any show cause notice to the applicant because the department took the view that the applicant remained careless and negligent in dealing with government cash. Further, the enquiry report was not demanded by the applicant of which a copy could be obtained from the office. Any kind of duty can be assigned to a government official including distribution of cash. Cashiers are usually UDCs without any specific training whereas the applicant was a much superior official. Doubts over the intention behind issue of instructions for deposit of Rs.5,000/- per month instead of recovering from the applicants monthly salary are uncalled for. The respondents have also clarified that presently the recovery is being made through the applicants salary.
13. In her rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated the averments already taken in the O.A. pointing out that the respondents have merely denied the averments of the applicant without being able to rebut them by any reliable material on record. As such, in terms of Apex Court decision in the case of Raj Bahadur Sharma Vs. U.O.I. (1998 (9)SCC 458) appropriate inference is required to be drawn against them. Applicant has mentioned in Para 4.8 that the conclusion reached by the enquiry committee clearly held Smt. Raj Kumari responsible for the quarrel during the process of disbursement of payment to Anganwari workers. However, there is no supporting material placed on record.
14. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings. The payments to Anganwari workers were being made by the Supervisors with the knowledge and consent of the respondents who have also discounted complaints of inadequate and insecure arrangements existing for the purpose. Numerous reports in support of the stand taken by the applicant were made to them and to the Police. These were not only by the CDPO, Sangam Vihar, the applicant and large number of staff but also by the Association of the Supervisors. An enquiry was set up no doubt to determine the facts, but its result remained undisclosed since no findings on the enquiry indicating the reasons for holding the applicant responsible based upon the evidence collected is found on record. Only piecemeal and unilateral observations by the respondents indicting the applicant are contained in the counter-reply on the basis of which the applicant has been found to be blameworthy and not only transferred but also asked to make good the loss of money. Evidently, no show cause notice was issued to her. Further, the respondents have stated that impugned order dated 20.07.2006 was issued by Respondent No.3 only by way of communication as directed. There is no clarification with regard to the impugned order dated 05.06.2006 passed by Respondent No.2 even though the competence of the issuing authority has been questioned.
15. In respect of order dated 20.07.2006, it is difficult to ignore the implication that the respondents were reluctant to recover the amount by deduction from salary and instead it was sought to be got deposited by the applicant as if made on a voluntary basis. Though the applicant requested that Rs.5,000/- p.m. be deducted from her salary, this was under protest and would not amount to a waiver of her right to contest the legality of the impugned orders.
16. The impugned order dated 05.06.2006 asking the applicant to deposit Rs. 50,000/- observes that she had kept the amount openly on the table but it is not clear why this is held against her when she was required to disburse the same, and whether it was actually so in the absence of details of the enquiry having been disclosed. It further says that the applicant was directly involved in the scuffle with Smt. Raj Kumari which again does not clarify the nature of involvement. Although Smt. Raj Kumari was a party to the scuffle only the applicant appears to have been transferred and ordered to deposit Rs.50,000/- without there being any mention as to whether Smt. Raj Kumar was exonerated by the competent authority of any responsibility on the basis of the enquiry or not.
17. In the absence of necessary material before us, we are unable to appreciate the stand taken by the respondents and find that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and a non-application of mind on their part. The impugned orders are, therefore, found to be unsustainable in law and are set aside. Amount deposited by the applicant and deducted from her salary shall be refunded to her within six weeks of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
18. We, however, provide that it would be open to the respondents to proceed further in this matter in accordance with law.
(N.D. Dayal) (V.K. Bali) Member(A) Chairman /vv/