Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Shri Ch. Hari S/O Late Ch. ... vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 17 August, 2007
ORDER
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. This application has been filed to quash the charge memo dated 8.12.2004, another memo dated 7.1.2005 imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,500/-, issued by R-1 and also to quash the memo dated 6.9.2005 issued by R-2 rejecting his appeal and also memo dated 18.10.2006 issued by R-3 rejecting his revision and also seeking a consequential direction to R-1 to R-3 to refund him the amount so far recovered from him @ Rs. 1500/- p.m. with effect from 1.1.2005 and also to quash O.M. No. 11012/1/2000- Estt (A) dated 6.9.2000 issued by R-5 directing recovery of entire loss as illegal and also for a direction to R-5 to amend Rule 11(iii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 providing for a regular inquiry in cases where the amount of proposed recovery is Rs. 25,000/- or more.
2. T he relevant facts are as follows:
The applicant is working as Postal Assistant in Nellore Division. He worked as Postal Assistant at Nellore Head Office from 1.1.96 to 31.5.99. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kodavalur Sub Office. About more than five years after his transfer from Nellore Head Office, on 8.12.2004, the charge memo (Annexure A-1) was served on him informing him that R-1 proposed to take action against him under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The statement of imputations of misconduct in respect of which action was proposed to be taken. The statement of imputation reads as follows:
Shri Ch. Hari, PA, Kodavalur SO while working as PA Nellore HO during the period from 1.1.96 to 31.5.99 has accepted the recurring deposits for the amount noted in respect of the following recurring deposits standing open at Nellore HO operated through MPKBY Agents, Nellore H.O. And failed to incorporate the amounts in HO accounts as required in Rule 31(2)(b) of POSB Manual at Volume 1 read with Recurring Deposit Rules.
Sl. Dated RD A/c No. Denomination Amount of fraud No. involved. 1. 30.03.1996 30600 120 120 2. 30.03.1996 30605 120 120 3. 31.12.1997 30685 60 60 4. 29.02.1996 32335 600 600 5. 26.03.1996 33040 Nil 120 6. 28.02.1998 30814 600 600 7. 28.02.1998 37576 150 150 8. 28.02.1998 38699 300 300 9. 28.02.1998 39563 150 100 (short credit)
With the above said irregularities, Shri Ch. Hari, PA, Kodavalur SO, facilitated the MPBKY Agents to commit frauds to the tune of Rs. 8,96,410 (rupees eight lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred and ten only in the Recurring Deposits standing open at Nellore HO.
It is, therefore, alleged that Shri Ch. Hari has failed to follow the Rule 31(2)(b) of POSB Manual Vol. 1 read with Recurring Deposit Rule and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant as required under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Sd/-
Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices Nellore Division, Nellore 524001.
3. On 1.1.2005, the applicant submitted his reply to the charge memo and it reads as follows:
Sir, I was informed vide memo cited above that it was proposed to take action against me under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 with the reasons that while I was working as PA RD Branch at Nellore H.O. I failed to incorporate a/cs shown in statement of imputations attached to the above memo.
As per my knowledge is concerned I am innocent and ignorant of the above transactions. The MPKBY agents of Nellore H.O. might have managed the transactions with the association of somebody else. Hence, the charges levelled against me may kindly be dropped.
Thereafter, on 7.1.2005, the first respondent, the disciplinary authority passed an order to recover Rs. 1,00,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month in 67 instalments from the pay of the applicant with effect from 1.1.2005. In the said order, the disciplinary authority stated as follows:
I have carefully read all connecting documents, records, the charge sheet and the written representation of the official. His plea that he is innocent and ignorant of the fraudulent transactions is a casual statement. In the charges made out against him in the memo, it was clearly mentioned that Sri. Ch. Hari who worked at Nellore HO during the period from 1.1.96 to 31.5.99 has accepted the Recurring Deposits through MPKBY Agents. The fraud which was estimated as Rs. 8,96,410/- (Rupees eight lakhs ninety six thousand four hundred and ten only) is quite substantial and the department's image is tarnished in the eyes of public. Post office has been a reliable public office for over 150 years. In spite of mushroom growth of parallel service providers, the Post Office has been rendering public service. Frauds of this kind, if happened, would certainly spoil the trust reposed on the department. As per the rules, MPKBY Agents would hand over the schedules of deposits to the Counter Assistant only. Shri Ch. Hari had worked as Counter Assistant for substantial period during which the fraud occurred. It is not known in what way it is correct to say that the MPKBY Agents would have managed the said transactions with some other person. As per the Rule 31(2)(b) of POSB Manual Vol.1 read with RD rules, the responsibilities of Counter Assistant are very clear. Sri Ch. Hari would have followed the correct position of rules so that the fraud would have been detected much earlier. He grossly failed to follow the prescribed rules and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Hence, the following punishment.
ORDER I, Yennam Upender, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Nellore Division, Nellore hereby order to recover Rs. 1,00,500/- (Rupees one lakh five hundred only) at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month in 67 (sixty seven) installments from the pay of Sri Ch. Hari, PA, Kodavalur SO w.e.f. 1.1.2005.
4. The applicant, preferred an appeal before R-2 on 10.2.2005 and the same was rejected by R-2 by order dated 6.9.2005. Thereafter, the applicant filed revision before the third respondent, Post Master General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad on 21.12.2005. the same was also dismissed by R-3 on 18.10.2006.
5. Aggrieved by the said confirmation of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, he approached this Tribunal challenging the orders passed by R-1 to R-3 and also seeking a direction to R-5 to amend Rule 11(iii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
6. The applicant in his application pleaded that the charges levelled against him are vague and as he denied the charges, R-1 ought to have instituted a regular inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to establish the charges levelled against him. The amount of short-credits ascribed to him in the charge memo worked out to Rs. 2,170/- but R-1 has ascribed the entire amount of frauds of Rs. 8,96,410/- of the MPKBY agents and other officials involved to him and imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,500/- by a cryptic order dated 7.1.2005 and it is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and without proper application of mind and it is also in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
Though he raised various grounds in his appeal to R-2, R-2 did not consider the grounds raised by him. The charge memo dated 8.12.2004 was issued after a delay of 5 = years and the charge was not supported by any account records to be maintained under the rules. In the absence of any account records, the applicant cannot be found guilty of the charges. The charge memo and statement of imputations were vague and lacking in material particulars and so he could not represent beyond stating that he was innocent and ignorant of the transactions. As per Rule 4 of the P&T Manual Vol. III, the statement of imputations should be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges and the charges should be clear, specific and precise. It is further stated that the deposits are accepted in the Post Office under the MPKBY agents, by entry in ASLAAS - 6 schedules for the day, but the imputations do not specify the schedule by which and the agent from whom the applicant accepted the instant deposits. It amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend an imputation. It is difficult to represent against imputation without showing what exactly went wrong. The acceptance of deposits is not proved by any evidence and hence the question of incorporation of these deposits does not arise. It is further pleaded that the penalty imposed is violative of Rules 106 to 111 of P&T Manual Vol. III together with the DGP & T letters dated 13.2.81 and 17.8.81. As per Rule 108, the maximum amount that may be recovered from a delinquent should not exceed 1/3rd of his pay for a period not exceeding three years. The imputation that the applicant facilitated MPKBY agents to commit frauds is not borne out of facts or records and it is totally fallacious, unreasonable, conjectural and misconceived. As per Rule 106 of P&T Manual Vol. III, recovery of pecuniary loss can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence and breach of orders or rules and such a negligence or breach caused the loss. Nothing has been established against the applicant in the impugned proceedings and the penalty is based on conjectures and surmises and hence it is to be set aside. It is further pleaded that this is a case where more than nine government servants are involved and hence common departmental proceedings should, as far as possible, be conducted under Rule 53 of P&T Manual Vol. III, Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is further pleaded that out of Rs. 8,96,410/- involved in the alleged frauds, the concerned MPKBY agents who are the main culprits in the case are reported to have credited nearly Rs. 6,50,000/- and the remaining amount of loss of Rs. 2,44,410/- has been distributed among 20 officials concerned at Nellore Head Office. Smt. Rajeswaramma, MPKBY Agent involved in the case is reported to have not credited the full amount but only Rs. 65,000/- was credited. Hence, a criminal case was filed against her by R-1. It is further pleaded that under Rule 21 of GFRs Vol. I Appendix I cannot be in excess of the actual amount of loss and the object of penalty is not to recover the entire amount of loss and the penalty should be regulated in such a manner that his future efficiency is not impaired and he should be required to pay more than the part which is clearly established to be contributed towards the loss by him. The applicant further pleaded that under Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the punishment of recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by a Govt. servant is treated as a minor penalty, without any reference to the monetary limits, without holding any inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) even when the amount of recovery exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/- resulting in grave injustice to the Govt. employee and it amounts to abuse of power and therefore it is fair and just to direct R-4 and R-5 to amend Rules 11(iii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 providing for a regular inquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) where the amount of proposed recovery exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. The applicant further pleaded that the Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India and Ors. held that an inquiry must be held even in the case of minor penalties when the charges are denied.
7. The respondents contested the application and filed reply statement stating that during the verification/inquires by the Inspectorial Staff, it is revealed that MPKBY Agents got access to the counters and staff of Post Office and used to get the stamp impressions in the pass books and made entries therein by themselves instead of Post Office Staff, without corresponding credits in MPKBY Agents lists (ASLAAS-6) which will be submitted by them incorporating in Post Office Accounts. The modus operandi adopted in this case is that the MPKBY agents used to prepare ASLAAS-6 lists in quadruplicate and bring the same to the HO along with the pass books and amounts. While getting their amounts deposited, ASLAAS-6 lists were not thoroughly checked up with reference to pass books etc. by counter Postal Assistants/Supervisors resulting in availability of a few more credits towards payment of additional installments which definitely points to the agents involvement and the possible connivance of Postal staff in some of the pass books without physically crediting the money in the concerned accounts. The entries so made in the pass books are found authenticated with the date stamps of Nellore Head Office, either on the same date or subsequent dates of different branches of Nellore Head Office. The agents are expected to make the deposits in respect of accounts operated by them only by preparing ASLAAS-6 lists. In some cases, ASLAAS-6 lists are not at all available/prepared on a particular day (no business done by the agents), but entries have been found made in the pass books either by agents or postal officials, duly date stamped without physically crediting the money into the concerned accounts.
The RD Counter Postal Assistant, Ledger Postal Assistant I & II and Supervisors, who worked during their period were identified as subsidiary offenders in the above case. The total amount of RD frauds at Nellore Head Office and credit/recovery particulars as on date are furnished below:
a) Net fraud amount (main loss) : Rs. 8,96,410-00
b) Penal interest (from 16.6.2000 to 30.11.2004) : Rs. 1,87,086-00
c) Total : Rs. 10,83,496.00
d) Amount already recovered/credited by officials/
MPKBY agents : (-) Rs. 7,75,190-00
e) Amount to be recovered : Rs. 3,08,306-00
f) Amount ordered for recovery from the sub
offenders namely Sri Ch. Hari (applicant) : Rs. 1,00,500/-
Smt. M. Lakshmikanthamma : Rs. 90,000/-
: (-) Rs. 1,90,500-00
g) Amount outstanding as on date : Rs. 1,17,806-00
(excluding the P.I. that may be computed
from 1.12.2004 onwards)
The applicant worked as Postal Assistant, Nellore Head Office from 1.1.96 to 31.5.99 and the period of fraud is from 28.2.95 to 26.6.2000. It clearly shows that the applicant worked in the RD counter at the initial stage of the fraud/commencement of fraud and during his period when worked out, the amount of fraud, it comes to Rs. 1,35,965/- in 349 accounts (Annexure R-1) in his period only. Had the applicant followed the prescribed rules in discharging his duties as counter postal assistant, the fraud might have come to light much earlier and the amount of fraud should be much lesser. The applicant failed to discharge his legitimate duties clearly. Thus, the applicant himself facilitated for the huge fraud of Rs. 8,96,410/-.
The applicant, who worked as Postal Assistant, Nellore Head Office from 1.1.1996 to 31.5.1999 was identified as one of the subsidiary offenders in this case and charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued vide R-1 Memo No. F4-1/2000-01/V dated 8.12.2004 requested to grant extension of another 15 days' time to submit his representation on the charge sheet and the same was granted by the disciplinary authority (R-1) on 21.12.2004. The applicant submitted his representation dated 1.1.2005 (Annexure R-3), stating that he was innocent and requested to drop the charges levelled against him. After careful study of the case and connected records, the proceedings were issued vide SSPOs, Nellore (R-1) Memo. No. F4-1/2000-01/V dated 7.1.2005 (Annexure R-4), ordering recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,00,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month in 67 instalments from the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2005. The copy of the proceedings were delivered to the applicant on 8.1.2005.
8. Regarding the lenient punishment imposed on other employees, the respondents stated that the other officials admitted their lapses in writing and requested for excuse in their written representation besides crediting the amount voluntarily, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and ordered censure and no discrimination was shown to anybody and that the amount of fraud during the period of the applicant is very high as the applicant worked for a considerable period in the beginning of the fraud, penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,00,500/- was imposed. The respondents pleaded that the punishment imposed is reasonable and just and therefore, R-2 and R-3 duly confirmed the same and there is no need for interference by this Tribunal and the application is liable to be dismissed.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated the contentions raised in the application. He submitted that it is a clear case of gross violation of principles of natural justice and also gross misuse of Rule 11 of CCS (Conduct) Rules and the respondents are to be directed to take steps for amendment of Rule 11(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to prevent misuse of the same. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel submitted that show cause notice has been given to the applicant and the applicant submitted an explanation and the disciplinary authority considered the explanation and rejected the same and passed an order of punishment and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that as the punishment imposed comes under minor penalty, it is not mandatory for the disciplinary authority to order an inquiry and it is for the disciplinary authority to exercise his discretion whether inquiry is essential and that in the instant case, as the charge is supported by documentary evidence, the disciplinary authority straitaway imposed minor penalty and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. He submitted that Rule 11(iii) as it now stands, has no monetary limit prescribed therein and therefore, the disciplinary authority is entitled to pass an order to recover the entire loss caused to the Government on account of misconduct of the Government servant without ordering an inquiry exercising his powers under Rule 11(iii) and Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
10. The points that arise for consideration in this application are:
(i) Whether the impugned order dated 7.1.2005 imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,500/- is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the orders passed by R-2 dated 6.9.2005 and the orders passed by R-3 dated 18.10.2006 confirming the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority are sustainable in law?
(iii) Whether the OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt. (A) dated 6.9.2000 issued by R-5 directing recovery of entire loss is liable to be quashed?
(iv) Whether direction is required to be given to R-5 to amend Rule 11(iii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to provide for a regular inquiry in case where the punishment in the form of recovery of amount shall be extracted to a particular monetary limit?
11. Points (i) & (ii):
As seen from the charge memo dated 8.12.2004 served on the applicant which is extracted in page 2 of this order, the allegation was only that he failed to incorporate the amounts in Head Office accounts in respect of only 9 RD accounts whose numbers are given therein and also the amounts involved therein. The total amount involved in the alleged fraud in so far as it relate to the accounts dealt by the applicant comes to only Rs. 2,170/-. But as seen from the order of punishment, an amount of Rs. 1,00,500/- was ordered to be recovered on the ground that the act of the applicant caused loss to the Government. There is no nexus between the amounts sought to be recovered and the amounts mentioned in the charge memo against the RD accounts. The charge memo is very vague and it does not disclose the details as to how the fraud was committed in respect of those accounts and how the applicant is responsible for not incorporating those accounts. Because as seen from the reply statement, the modus operandi is that the MPBKY agents used to have access to the counter and staff of the Post Office and used to get the stamp impressions in the the pass books and made entries therein by themselves instead of post office staff without corresponding credits in MPKBY Agents List which will be submitted by them incorporating in post office accounts, So, it is not known whether the applicant had any role in respect of the false entries made in the pass books without actually remitting the amounts. Further, as per Rule 4 of P&T Manual Vol. III, the statement of imputations should be reduced in the form of a definite charge and the charges should be clear, specific and precise. But here in this case, the manner in which the alleged fraud was committed and the role of the applicant has not been stated in the imputations. Therefore, we find considerable force in the contention of the applicant that the charge memo and the statement of imputations are vague. As seen from the reply given, the applicant has specifically stated that he is innocent and ignorant of the transactions mentioned in the charge memo and the MPKBY Agents might have managed the transactions with the association of somebody else. His explanation has been extracted at page 3 of this order. The disciplinary authority found fault with such explanation terming it as vague and general. As seen from the said reply, there is no vagueness and the applicant categorically denied the charges framed against him. In spite of such denial, the disciplinary authority did not choose to conduct an inquiry for the purpose of fixing up the responsibility for non-incorporation of the amounts in the Head Office Accounts. It is purely a question of fact and it is to be established by evidence. For that purpose, MPKBY Agents and the accounts holders have to be examined and the entries in the pass books are to be verified in the presence of the applicant. No such inquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority. Under the guise of exercise of powers under Rule 11(iii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the disciplinary authority passed orders of punishment. Merely because punishment of recovery of loss to the Government comes under the minor penalty, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority can straightaway unilaterally impose punishment of recovery of the alleged loss. As seen from Rule 106 of P&T Manual Vol. III, recovery of pecuniary loss can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence and breach of orders or rules and such negligence or breach caused the loss. In the instant case, no inquiry has been conducted to establish the said facts though the applicant denied the same. Therefore, it is clear that the disciplinary authority without giving opportunity to the applicant to prove his innocence pleaded in his reply, unilaterally imposed punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,500/- though the charge memo contained only Rs. 2,170/- directly attributable to the applicant.
12. In O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors. , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.
13. In Satyabadi Barik v. Union of India and Ors., the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, reported in Swamy's CL Digest 1995/1 paged 326, it is held that recovery order passed by the disciplinary authority is invalid unless the negligence part of the Government servant and the manner in which the lapses on his part had a link with the loss sustained by the Government are proved. The Cuttack Bench referred to Govt. of India instructions dated 13.2.81 under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 which prescribed the manner in which a charge has to be framed and that the disciplinary authority is required to give a clear finding in the punishment order on both the points, i.e. The negligent part of the Government servant and the manner in which the lapses on the part of the Government servant had a link with the loss sustained by the Government. Here, in the instant case, the disciplinary authority failed to give a clear finding on both these aspects and in fact failed to make mention of these two important aspects in the charge memo.
14. We have no hesitation to hold that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice in this case as contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant and hence the impugned order dated 7.1.2005 imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 1,00,500/- without conducting regular inquiry is not sustainable in law. The appellate authority, R-2 and Revisional Authority, R-3 also failed to note that such a huge amount was ordered to be recovered without conducting any inquiry to establish that the applicant is directly responsible for the said loss of Rs. 1,00,500/- though the applicant pleaded innocence and denied the charge. They also failed to note that the charge memo served on the applicant was very vague and did not contain details regarding the manner in which the alleged fraud is committed and pointing out the exact role played by the applicant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the orders passed by R-2 and R-3 are not sustainable in law and are liable to set aside on the sole ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice, and that the matter is liable to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct an inquiry to establish the alleged misconduct on the part of the applicant. Thus, these two points are found in favour of the applicant.
15. Points (iii) & (iv):
R-5 issued OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt. (A) dated 6.9.2000 stating that it is not necessary to fix a rigid limit for the purpose of recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Government and that the DG P&T instructions issued earlier restricting the recovery to 1/3rd of the basic pay is unwarranted as there is no such restriction contained in the substantive provision of Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and therefore, there is no bar for recovery of the entire loss caused to the Government by spreading over the recovery. As seen from Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, thee is no limit prescribed for recovery of loss to the Government from the employee. The said Rule 11(iii) reads as follows:
(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders The same is shown as one of the minor penalties. In view of the absence of monetary limit, given under Rule 11(iii), the Department of Personnel & Training has no power to prescribe monetary limit in the form of Government instructions by way of clarification. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the impugned O.M. No. 11012/1/2000-Estt. (A) dated 6.9.2000 is liable to be quashed. By way of the impugned OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt. (A) dated 6.9.2000 clarified that the earlier instructions of the DOPT are unwarranted and therefore, thee is no monetary limit for recovery of loss to the Government and the entire loss has to recovered by spreading over the same for several years depending upon the circumstances of each case. Instead of issuing instructions imposing monetary limit and also restricting the period of recovery, in the form of clarification, the DOPT ought to have recommended for amendment of Rule 11(iii) to incorporate monetary restriction. We are also of the considered view that it is a fit case to recommend to the rule making authority to consider amendment to Rule 11(iii) for the reason that the recovery of huge amount cannot be called as a minor penalty. For example, if there is loss to the tune of some lakhs of rupees on account of alleged negligent act of the employee, it cannot be said that the order of recovery of such huge amount can be equated with other minor penalties mentioned under Rule 11(i), (ii) and (iii)(a). The recovery of huge amount from the salary of the employee for number of years without any limit would definitely cause lot of hardship to the employee and therefore, it would definitely amounts to major penalty. Moreover, minor penalties are being imposed without conducting regular inquiry prescribed under Rule 14. Therefore, we are of the view that it is desirable to prescribe certain monetary limit in respect of punishment of recovery of loss without conducting regular inquiry, in Rule 11(iii) by way of an amendment. Thus, these points are found accordingly.
16. In the result, OA is partly allowed setting aside the impugned orders dated 7.1.2005, 6.9.2005 and 18.10.2006 passed by R-1 to R-3 respectively and remitting back the matter to the disciplinary authority to initiate regular inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules. The prayer for quashing OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt. (A) dated 6.9.2000 issued by R-5 is rejected. However, R-5 is directed to consider appropriate amendment to Rule 11(iii) in a suitable manner in the light of the observations made in these orders. There shall be no order as to costs. The amount if any already recovered shall be refunded to the applicant within a period of one month.