Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Girish Trivedi vs Union Of India on 24 May, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO.1304/2008 NEW DELHI, THIS THE 24th DAY OF MAY, 2010. HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Girish Trivedi, S/o Shri C.M.P. Trivedi, Principal Scientific Officer, Directorate of Quality Assurance (Stores) Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence (DGQA) G Block, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Advocate Shri L.R. Khatana) VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Defence Production & Supplies, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. The Director General of Quality Assurance, Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Department of Defence Production & Supplies, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 3. The Central Vigilance Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkta Bhavan, INA, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Shri T.C. Gupta) O R D E R MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A):
In this fourth round of litigation the Applicant is challenging the order dated 3.05.2007 of the President inflicting the penalty of reduction in basic pay by one stage for one year with further directions that he would not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that it will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Also under challenge are the note of disagreement dated 1.01.2001, whereby the disciplinary authority has recorded his disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer as also the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) dated 4.12.2000.
2. The Applicant was working as Senior Scientific Officer, Grade 1 (SSO-1) at the time of controversy. Presently he is Principal Scientific Officer (PSc0) in the office of the Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA), Stores, in the Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence. The controversy involved in the instant case relates to the supply order dated 11.04.1990 for supply of 256 almirahs collapsible M.K.II, placed on M/s Swaraj Enterprises, New Delhi by the Technical Committee (Store). A Memorandum of charge dated 14.10.1998 was served on the Applicant, in regard to the aforesaid supply order of 11.04.1990, levelling the following charge against him.
Shri Girish Trivedi, SSO-I, CQA (T&C), Kanpur while working in SQAE (GS) New Delhi recommended approval of the advance sample of Almirah collapsible Medium MK II ex M/s. Swaraj Enterprises, New Delhi without complete paper particulars of the store and without brining on record, the fact that the advance sample as well as the delivery No. 622 was in painted condition against the contractual condition of being french polished and also issued bulk production clearance.
By his above acts, Shri Trvedi has failed to maintain absolute integrity and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In order fully to appreciate the controversy it may be necessary to consider the statement of imputation of misconduct, which reads thus:
A S.O. No. B/89854/SUP/DGQA (S-4)/CPO (N)- 5/90 dated 11.4.90 for supply of qty 265 Almirah Collapsible Medium MK II was placed on M/s Swaraj Enterprises, New Delhi. While CAO, QAE (GD) New Delhi was the Inspecting Officer, CQA (GS), Kanpur was the Inspecting Authority for the said stores.
2. The evaluation of advance sample was processed by Shri Saroj Sharma, A/F, without complete paper particulars of the store being available. While doing so, complete testing of plywood, french polish, HASP and staple was not carried out. The fact that advance sample was pained instead of being polished as provided in the contract was also not brought on record. Shri Girsih Trivedi, SSO-II, recommended approval of the advance sample and the same was approved by the QAO. Shri Trivedi issued Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) vide QAE (GS) N. Delhi letter No. C/24/90/GS dated 7.8.90. Further, Shri Trivedi vide letter No. C/24/90/GS dated 28.6.91 wrote to TC (S) in connection with delivery No. 720 that the earlier supplies were accepted in painted condition and advance sample was also in painted condition, but the same was not commented upon while reporting the advance sample. One of the bulk inspectors, Shri KR Tyagi CM-II vide his letter dated 29th Sept 97 has also stated that the store (delivery No. 622/first lot of qty 100) was accepted in painted condition as per instructions of Shri Trivedi. Hence, it can be inferred that Shri Trivedi was fully aware that the advance sample was painted instead of being french polished as stipulated in the contract. He, thus, willfully suppressed from the QAO the fact of the advance sample as well as delivery No. 622 being painted.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant has pointed to the five issues formulated by the inquiry officer and the latters analysis of the evidence to come to the conclusion that the charges against the Applicant have not been proved. The relevant parts of the inquiry officers report are quoted below in extenso.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED A. Whether Shri Girish Trivedi, SSO-I gave approval of advance sample without complete paper particulars of the store?
B. Whether Shri Girish Trivedi accepted paint in advance sample for the purpose of giving BPC?.
C. Whether Shri Girish Trivedi accepted Dly No.622 in painted condition in lieu of French Polished as per contractual condition?
D. Whether Shri Girish Trivedi has not brought on record that advance sample was in painted condition instead of being polished?
Whether Shri Girish Trivedi will fully (sic) suppressed from the QAO. The fact that the advance sample as well as Dly No. 622 were in painted condition.
EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF EACH ARTICLE OF CHARGE A . (i) As seen from the documents on receipt of S.O. the C.O. wrote to different AsHSP regarding paper particulars of each item involved viz. Hasp, plywood, staple, French Polish etc. vide letter No.C/24/90/GS dated 24-4-90 (Appendix-C). The firm submitted the advance sample on 30-4-90 and the same was sent for lab evaluation.
(ii) Except from CQA (M), Kanpur who informed that French polish was not an introduced Item as such no specification was available. The C.O. again reminded the CQA (GS), Kanpur vide letter No. C/24/90/GS dated 10-7-90 (Appendix-E).
(iii) As no reply was received from CQA (GS), Kanpur and verdicting of advance sample was held up the report was cleared on 7-8-90 vide case No. C/24/90/GS (Appendix -).
(iv) The C.O. was cautioned by the P.O. for delay of four months in reporting of advance sample. In the DGQA Standing Order also, it is instructed to clear the advance sample expeditiously.
(v) The main plea of the C.O. was that when AHSP is not responding and verdicting is pending for which he was already hauld up what was the alternative left for him except to clear the advance sample.
(vi) The recommendation made by the C.O. was also approved by QAO vide Minute Sheet No. (2 & 3 of case No.C/24/90/GS) (Appendix-F).
B. (i) It was pointed out by D.A that the BPC recommended vide SQAE (S), New Delhi letter No. C/24/90/GS dt. 7-8-90 (Appendix- G). It was mentioned that the firm may be advised to go head for bulk manufacture after eliminating rectifiable defects and use specified quality of coppenaphthenate, French polish and Plywood.
(ii) The purchase office while giving the BPC to the firm vide their letter No. B/89554/SUP/DGQA/S-4 dated 21-8-90 (Appendix-H) did not mention about the use of specified quality of French polish, Copper Naphthenate. The reasons for not communicating to the firm is not available in the records.
(iii) After the close scrutiny of the document it is observed that no where it is mentioned that the store was in painted condition i.e. neither in test report (Appendix-I) nor during scrutiny/verdicting of test report i.e. (Appendix-F).
(iv) The lab test report also mentioned that the store could not be tested for French polish as it is not possible to test the same from made up store.
(v) The C.O. vide letter No. C/24/90/GS dated 28-6-91 (Appendix-J) wherein para-3 it is mentioned that the advance sample was in painted condition and the same was not commenting upon while reporting the advance sample.
(vi) The C.O. in para-1 of page 3 of defence statement also stated that he came to know first time about paint from the AHSP letter No.C/1155/90/G-6/QA dated 5-6-91. His letter written to TC (S) vide letter No. C/24/90/90/GS dated 28-6-91 were based on the examination of remnants samples and feed back received from AHSP regarding Dly No. 622.
C. (i) As seen from the documents the Dly No. 622 was offered in unfinished condition and the lab report was scrutinized by Shri RSL Shukla, A/F and verdicted by Shri Girish Trivedi. Shri Girish Trivedi vide Minute Sheet No. 5 & 6 of case No. C/24/90/GS Vol.-1 (Appx.-K & L) and was recommended for acceptance subject to specified marking and finally to be varnished.
(ii) From the record it is also seen that the processing of issuing of I/Note after a bulk Inspection of the lot in question was routed through Shri Sukhwent Singh, F/M as Offg. AQAO vide Minute Sheet No. 7 of case No. C/24/90/GS (Appendix-L).
(iii) A team headed by Shri Laxmi Chand, A/F and Shri KR Tyagi, C/M-II were detailed to carry out bulk inspection. It is at this stage that the inspection team used Safeda with varnish as admitted by them. After completion of bulk inspection the documents were submitted to Shri Sukhwent Singh, Offg. AQAO who further processed the case for issue of I/Note.
(iv) The statement made by Shri KR Tyagi, C/M-I vide his letter dated 29-9-97 is contradictory as Shri KR Tyagi, C/M-I during proceedings has mentioned that all the instructions he received through Shri Laxmi Chand, A/F only and had not received any instructions directly from Shri Girish Trivedi vide the proceedings dated 8-2-2000. Further Shri KR Tyagi could not distinguish between paint and Safeda mixed with varnish. According to his version both are same.
D. (i) This was pointed out by D.A. that the letter written by C.O. dated 28-6-91 was based on the observation made by the AHSP vide their letter dated 28-6-91 that Dly No. 622 was accepted in painted condition before that he did not have any opportunity to see the finished store.
(ii) The laboratory test report also did not point out that the store was in painted condition.
(iii) The D.A also pointed out that BPC by C.O. was recommended subject to the firm complying with the requirement of the S.O. conditions. The purchase officer omitted, either deliberately or due to oversight to convey the same precautions to the firm. Hence the responsibilities rest with the purchase officer.
(iv) The finish of advance sample was not so important from the point of view of technical ability of the firm. Even then the C.O. vide his letter of 23-4-90 specifically stipulated that the firm should be asked to use specified French polish.
(v) The DA also pointed out that the letter of 28-6-91 is simply bare statement of fact and no where mentioned about the responsibility of acceptance or concealment.
E. (i) The evidence in respect of advance sample has already been mentioned in D abc.
(ii) Regarding paint in Dly No. 622 it was accepted by the inspection team (Shri Laxmi Chand, A/F and Shri KR Tyagi, C/M-II) that on the unfinished store Safeda along with varnish was applied. The C.O. in no way gave any instructions in respect to use Safeda along with varnish. This was their own decision so that the greenish patchy appearance of the coppemaphthenate could be masked.
(iii) The I/Note was routed through Shri Sukhwent Singh, F/M who was offg. AQAO at that time vide Minute Sheet No. 7 of case No. C/24/90/GS (Appendix-M).
4. The President, however, tentatively disagreed with the views of the inquiry officer and recorded a note of disagreement. The disciplinary authority stressed that the Applicant did not have proactive liaison with the Authority Holding Sealed Particulars (AHSP) to obtain the specifications of the advance sample. It is stated that DGQA standing order does not stipulate clearance of sample without consulting the paper particulars. It was because of the Applicant not obtaining the paper particulars, he could not comment on the hasp padlock, plywood and french polish. The note of disagreement further noted that although the test report of the Applicant has not mentioned whether the sample was in painted or polished condition, yet in his letter dated 28.06.1991 he wrote to the concerned officer that the earlier supplies had been accepted in painted condition and the advance sample was also in pained condition. He (the Applicant), however, failed to bring this fact on record. It is owing to this the almirahs were received in painted condition instead of being only polished in french polish, which was a violation of the contract condition. After obtaining the representation of the Applicant a penalty of reduction in basic pay by two stages for three years, with the condition of not earning increment of pay during the period of reduction and reduction having the effect of postponing future increments of pay was imposed. On review, following the direction of this Tribunal to pass order on the application for review in OA No. 562/2003 decided on 13.03.2003, the punishment was modified to reduction by one stage for one year. The Applicant approached this Tribunal through OA number 3019 of 2003, challenging the order of punishment mainly on the ground that the advice of the CVC had not been communicated to the Applicant. The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed the order of punishment. The Respondents, thereafter, approached the Honourable Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 2643-45/2005, which was decided on 23.08.2006. The Respondents were directed to communicate the advice of the CVC to the Applicant herein and upon his representation pass an appropriate order. Pursuant to the direction of the Honourable High Court, the impugned order has been passed.
5. It has been urged on behalf of the Applicant that the note of disagreement has not repelled any of the conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer and, therefore, the order of punishment has been founded on the treacherous sand of subjective consideration. It is pointed out that the Applicant took proactive action within a few days of receipt of the supply order, even before the Advance Sample was sent by the firm by writing to the AHSPs on 24.04.1990 for obtaining paper particulars. Advertence has been made to the DGQAs Standing Order 1974, quoted in paragraph 4.5 of the OA, which, inter alia, reads thus:
Advance samples will be tested and reported most expeditiously as otherwise inspecting officers may be blamed for delays in execution of the contract. On receipt they will be tested by AsHSP Establishments except when specifically authorized by the AsHSP in this regard. Copies of reports will be submitted to the Purchase Officer, Bulk Inspector and the contractor. Advance samples if accepted will be treated as part of bulk supply and accounted for accordingly. Any difference between the advance samples and the specified particulars governing supply or any discrepancies/defects should be listed to the contractor so that these are eliminated in bulk production. Approval of the advance sample does not alter the standard required in the bulk supply which will be according to the particulars governing supply as laid down in the contract. (emphasis supplied) It is contended that normally one month is permitted for reporting of Advance Sample as has been clearly stated in un-numbered paragraph 4 (a) of the order dated 11.09.2003 passed in review that it is true that advance samples are required to be cleared within a month by giving the recommendation to the Purchase Officer for intimating the supplier.., but the Applicant waited for four months for obtaining paper particulars from the AHSPs. The Applicant, in his judgment, waited for sufficiently long time for the aforesaid authority to respond as the term proactive action is a relative term and any lapse due to delay would be attributable to ASHP, contends the learned counsel. It is further stated that the Controller Quality Assurance (Material), Kanpur informed vide letter dated 14.06.1990 that French Polish was not an introduced item and as such no specifications are in existence. The Applicant wrote a letter on 7.08.1990 to the Contract/Purchase Officer communicating various observations regarding the Advance Sample, in which, inter alia, it was recorded as follows:
The firm may please be advised to go ahead with bulk manufacture after eliminating above variations. They also be advised to use specified quality of Copper Naphthanate, french polish and plywood. However, Lt. Col. U.S. Paintal, Secretary Technical Committee (Stores) in his letter dated 21.08.1990 to M/s Swaraj Enterprises, the supplier, mentioned all other observations of the Applicant in the aforesaid communication except the observations regarding French polish. It is argued that the final responsibility for Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) rests on the Technical Committee (Stores). The aforesaid Committee ignored the recommendation of the Applicant for which he cannot be blamed. Advertence has also been made to the Laboratory test reports placed at pages 33 and 34 of the paper book. It is mentioned therein that French polish could not be examined during the tests and that the sample had been destroyed in the test. It is contended that when the delivery of 100 almirahs in delivery number 622 was received, the said almirahs were in unpainted and unvarnished condition. It is pointed out and not disputed that this practice is followed in order to be able to deduct the defects in the timber used in construction. Advertence has been made to the observation of the inquiry officer in his report to the effect that:
(11) Regarding paint in Dly No. 622 it was accepted by the inspection team (Shri Laxmi Chand A/F and Shri K.R. Tyagi C/M-II) that on the unfinished store Safeda along with varnish was applied. The C.O in no way gave any instructions in respect to use Safeda along with varnish. This was their own decision so that the greenish patchy appearance of coppernapthanate could be mashed. It is contended that after giving his report regarding the delivery number 622, the Applicant was on leave and had nothing further to do with the case. It is also argued that on 5.06.1991, a letter was received from the AHSP, Kanpur stating that the delivery number 622 was found in painted condition. The Applicant would not have any responsibility for this, as clearly brought out by the inquiry officer in the paragraph quoted above. The Applicant had only seen the consignment in delivery number 622 in unpolished/ unpainted stage. The consignment number 622 was rejected because of its being in painted condition. The Applicant made a suggestion to the Technical Committee (Store) on 21.06.1991 that the supplier should be asked to rectify the defects and the supply be regularized as post-contract deviation. The Technical Committee was, however, willing to reconsider the matter only if it was confirmed that the advance sample was in painted condition. The Applicant, it is stated, was able to obtain the remnants of the sample, which had been destroyed in the tests. The old piece of the furniture gave an appearance of being painted, which was communicated by the Applicant to the Technical Committee (Store) by his letter dated 28.06.1991. Eventually it was decided by the Technical Committee (Stores) that the supplier should be allowed to carry out rectifications and that paint could be accepted in lieu of polish.
6. The learned counsel for the Applicant would argue that in the foregoing overview of the matter, there was no justification for issuing the Memorandum of charge to the Applicant, in 1998, seven years after the alleged misconduct. It is fervently argued that the action of the Applicant cannot be termed as misconduct as there is no element of wilfulness in his action. The Applicant had waited for the paper particulars from the AHSP for four months although, it is conceded that the report had to be submitted within one month of the receipt of the sample. Eventually the sample was accepted in the painted condition. No loss has been caused to the Department. Reliance has been placed on the judicial precedent of G.P. Sewalia Vs. Union of India and Anr., OA number 2210/2006 decided on 27.08.2008.
7. It is further contended that no action was taken against Shri K.R. Tyagi and Shri Laxmi Chand and the major penalty proceedings against them was dropped. They had admitted that direction for painting had been given by them without any direction from the Applicant. This, the learned counsel would contend is discriminatory. It is further contended that the CVCs advice is laconic and apparently without any application of mind.
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent would only contend that the Applicant had admitted that the advance sample was painted. He should have made a mention of this. This has been stated thus in the paragraph 7 of the counter reply:
7. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of Inquiry Report that the charges against the Applicant were not proved on the ground that the applicant was aware that the advance sample was submitted in painted condition against coated with French polish as revealed vide his letter dated 28.6.1991 (Annx R-4). The Advance Sample was admitted in painted condition which should have been noticed by the applicant either on visual inspection of the Advance Sample while forwarding same to the laboratory or on visual inspection of the remnants of the Almirah received with the test report. However, the applicant neither mentioned the same while putting his recommendation to QAO in the bulk production clearance letter dated 07-08-90 (Annx A4 of OA). (emphasis added) It is contended that displeasure was conveyed to Shri K.R. Tyagi and Shri Laxmi Chand also and thus there has been no discrimination against the Applicant.
9. We have given our utmost consideration to the arguments raised by the parties and have also gone through the record minutely.
10. The Applicant was caught between a rock and a hard place. He had to give his report most expeditiously after receiving the advance sample. It is admitted that normally the report has to be given within one month after receiving the sample. The Applicant had taken advance action, before receiving the sample, to obtain particular from its authorized holder. He has reminded the concerned authority. He has waited for four months. These facts are not denied. We fail to understand how then would the disciplinary authority, in the note of disagreement, say that the Applicant did not take proactive action. This is belied by the facts, as stated above. The inquiry officer has observed that except the CQA(M), Kanpur, who informed that french polish was not an introduced item, no other authority has responded to the Applicants query. It is also mentioned by the inquiry officer that the Applicant was cautioned for the delay of four months. In these circumstances, the action of the Applicant cannot be called `misconduct. In G.P. Sewalia, this Tribunal had considered the issue as follows:
7.There cannot be any exhaustive definition of misconduct. However, the same as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 would mean, thus:
A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness. `Misconduct in office has been defined as:
Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. In P. Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, the term `misconduct has been defined as under:
The term `misconduct implies, a wrongful intention, and not involving error of judgment.
Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.
The word `misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.
8. Having given our anxious thoughts, we have come to a firm conclusion that there is distinction between misconduct and not performing the duties as efficiently as another person similarly situate may be able to perform. Misconduct has to have some element of delinquency, may be, even gross negligence. It is only when the allegations subject matter of charge may tantamount to misconduct that a person can be proceeded for inflicting any of the punishments prescribed in the rules. Non-performance of duties, which may have no element of unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, misdemeanor, misdeed, impropriety or a forbidden act, may some time amount to not carrying out the duties efficiently, but the same cannot be construed to be misconduct. If decisions that may ultimately prove to be less beneficial to an organisation for which a person is working are to be termed as misconduct liable for punishment under rules, no person discharging his duties would be able to take any major decision. The administrative work, if may not come to a grinding halt, would, in any case, slow down so much that it may cause more harm and loss to the concerned institution. From our experience from several hundred cases that we have dealt, we find that a negative and indecisive attitude is developing amongst the government officers, primarily for the reason that any decision taken which may be even in good faith, or favourably interpreting rules benefiting even a deserving government employee, may not become subject matter of disciplinary action against them. Surely, if government servants are to be tried departmentally for bona fide actions taken by them in discharge of their official duties, which may have absolutely no undertones or overtones of delinquency, the situation as prevails today is bound to aggravate. Considering the Applicants actions on the touchstone of the above test, we are of the considered opinion that his action could not be construed to be an act of misconduct. There is clear mention in the Applicants report that the supplier be advised to use specified quality of french polish. The Secretary of the Technical Committee omitted to mention this in his letter to the supplier. The Applicant never directed the samples to be painted, as has been admitted by Shri K.R. Tyagi and Shri Laxmi Chand. This has been recorded in the inquiry report, as quoted above. Still these officers, who were actually responsible for painting the sample have been let off without any punishment because `displeasure is not a punishment under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Applicant has been singled out, for wrong reasons, for punishment. It is also not in dispute that the sample was destroyed in testing. Any report based on the observation of the remnant chips cannot be reliable. Ultimately the samples were accepted in painted condition. This seems to be a case of much ado about nothing. The Memorandum of charge was served on the Applicant after seven years. There is no explanation for delay. The facts were known in 1990-91 itself. Delay has also caused prejudice to the Applicant. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, (1991) 16 ATC 514, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:
4. The appeal against the order dt. 16-12-1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1997 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunals orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal. (emphasis added) Moreover, there are no allegations of corruption and attempt to give undue benefit to the supplier. The delayed charge sheet cannot thus be justified.
11. The advice of the CVC has also been perused. What reply can the charged officer give to a totally non-speaking direction? No grounds for coming to the conclusion regarding punishment have been recorded.
12. We are of the considered opinion that this is a case of no evidence against the Applicant in the departmental proceedings; the Applicant is not guilty of any misconduct; and the delay in serving the Memorandum of charge is entirely unexplained and has caused prejudice to the Applicant.
13. The OA is allowed on above consideration and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The recovery made from the Applicants pay would be reimbursed to him with eight per cent simple interest per annum within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman `sk