Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Saptati Bhattacharya vs Eastern Railway on 2 July, 2019
1 o.a. 350.00162.2019 ; i
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA No. O.A. 350/00162/2019 Date of order: 2.7.2019 Present Hon^ble Ms. Bidisha Baneijee, Judicial Member Hon^ble Dr. Nandita Chatteijee, Administrative Member Saptati Bhattacharya, Daughter of Late S.C. Chakraborty, Aged about 46 years, Working for gain as Office Superintendent (OS) Under^SSilidr'Divigional^ommercial Manager, S^daJ^, ■ Hk •JEr 0 A.T Chatteijee Rb Dhakuri^ Koikamwmpmm.
%
»licant. %
■Iti
m
aawaamy?- -is
I1gair%^anag^7 .
Railway,
4. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, Kolkata - 700 014.
5. Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, Kolkata-700 014.
... Respondents
T
i
i
■ ' _______
/
• '/
2 o.a. 350.00162.2019
For the Applicant Mr. C. Sinha, Counsel
For the Respondents Mr. S.K. Das, Counsel
ORDER fOral)
Per Dr. Nandita Chatteriee* Administrative Member:
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
"(a) Impugned Speaking Orderdated 02.09.2016 issued by Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastem^RailwayrSeal^ah^as. communicated vide letter dated
06.09.2016. A % To direct the^^^n'derits' to^refuim l^pt^^amount^as recovered from
(b) the salary bf the Ippicaht from July 2015 amornitm^to, Rs. 1357933/- together with interest @%^§p.a. __ _ % •/
(c) # To rprodu te % g to the foUbvqng:- ^ Mwfe baCic^mAP and LHAP frlin 2014 i!t.# JF a. * I numberiiofldaysl leave of over papnentlp.e.f.
recorch No rejoi^jd^^o5!^^^m .*?■-
The app^g^s^^^ssions, as made'f&3^h^|
3. M. Counsel, is % r / \ ^ --------------
that, dem
T
with the
\
■ W $0^ - %
respondent authorities^Arbitfd m 43^* e&*~
was-ini
-sST-
against her
20 l^^hane^rJ^are-^SmeT sh^
salary w.e.f. 'ad approached the
Tribunal in O.A. 755 of 2016 which was disposed of vide orders dated 21.7.2016 and, in compliance to the same, the respondent authorities issued a speaking order dated 2.9.2016 justifying the recovery.
That, the applicant proceeded on CCL w.e.f 18.7.2016 to 30.6.2017 and upon her rejoining, recovery from her salary re-commenced w.e.f.
January, 2018 and is still continuing till date, and, hence, aggrieved by 3 o.a. 350.00162.2019 the arbitrary action of the respondent authorities, the applicant has approached the Tribunal.
4. The respondents have controverted the claim of the applicant through a written statement in which they have argued that the applicant availed of excess leave in various spells from January, 2014 to December, 2018. Resultantly, she withdrew excess salary to the extent of Rs. 3,15,838/- out of which a total of Rs. 1,56,557/- has already been deducted from her salap hills "arid the f^in'aimng overpayment is yet to be deducted. In suppc^h the^sIcSitll^e^so fenished the details ' of the leave^statei^Jpoi the applicant ^ ** Cf' i* 'V ,
5. Th/onl^pie to ih marieyj^|ther the appro^riatifeoceduge (ifci initi^ti^fethe recd^y5 the salf °Si applicf^^^g^-
WHer Svhich was^ssuld in m Jfi '' ^ comriliag^ to direct»i|J 'W^0 ?C::"'"'; '®rt^^i#idsPcalSfon^ri8 repridifc^ias under:-^ r .4 vs-y £ I [! TS. jf "%! %wj.
%% Sub^Sp^lang connectionwith*HonrbIe\CB.T^AL'sGrrder
^"^mon
* vsrifa *$,**' ^ jf
of Sdi3m Others.
Honhle by its briFer dtd. 2J^£@T6 have been pleased to
dispose of the above bj^with^the^regtipn^i^^i the respondents to consider the representation in the light of cited decision and pass reasoned and speaking order within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and it is further directed that respondents on their own wisdom pass appropriate orders granting benefits as the applicant would be entitled to as per law.
Undersigned being respondent No. 3 perused the above order of Honble CAT/CAL and representation dated 10.10.2015 of the applicant annexed in the O.A., though the said representation has not been received by this office and following observations have been made.
The fact of the case is that Smt. Saptati Bhattacharya was appointed as Clerk Gr. II in the year of 25.4.1991 in Railway Service. Subsequently she was promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk and Office Superintendent. Now she is working as Office Superintendent under Sr. Divl. Commercial Manager.
It is noticed that over a period of time from April, 2014 to June, 2015, the applicant, Smt. Saptati Bhattacharya was granted LAP in different spells to .-■■'Sir-
it: .gaawajrg--r 4 o.a. 350.00162.2019 the extent of 86 numbers of days & 58X2= 116 days LHAP as commuted leave by the leave sanctioning authority. On subsequent scrutiny of records it was detected that excess leave was sanctioned though she did not have leave at her credit at the material time. Thus, there had been overpayment of salary in her case for the period in question which she was not entitled to. The number of days and amount which was calculated for recovery have also been mentioned in the order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 21.7.16. The total amount of excess payment has been calculated as Rs. 65,480/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand four hundred eighty) only. Out of the said amount of Rs. 9,945/- (Rupees Nine thousand nine hundred forty five) only has already been recovered from her salary for the month of May and June, 2016 @ Rs. 4945/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively. It also appears that though no formal show-cause notice was issued to her but the matter was known to her since she also verbally requested to recover the total amount in suitable instalments, a mention of it appeared in Para 4.7 of the instant O.A. The amount which is yet to be recovered as per calculation made based on records of this office is Rs. 55,535/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand five hundred thirjy'five) only.
In her representatiqn^dated^S^Oil.S which 1she,had enclosed with her O.A. as A-13,; she ^s:|mSSo|e&hltjph^Sm|unt bf%excess payment was deducted from. her^l%yiwithout any reaso^andfathoutfany notice. In this regard, it is mjntionlh that the applicant being a Mejjat% pers^L working in the capacity of Ogjjfesupervisor categoiy^she was also awjSggof tSfeact that she availed exchssjTeave than^vhffiw^^factu^ycat her credit.'It aUdtreveals from the^ecordtcTf service ,th®®ie fhad|ren^ainefi^bsent on number oj|occasions dunnggher entire #us,J|fe instan Jh^&e of Raii^iasiifln Civil in SSfew while '^^minglto the F*-* 5 ^That, bef& mMn^l^^ecfeM^S^^JajSeht, a sho^O^use notice | shtod have May Ss^tine, ||016, ~r'^ ■3' ' ^ flic purpose now, more so fi wh^^ihi u %That,\tipuition^/condiflons^enS^^^i^the^rdei^TO tl^^cinhle Apex Court %ye no&een vmlatpijbg.cause the^acfl^pn th^lirt oj&e Respondent is not an^iniquitbus one ana|the mhneyfaihbunti^^to Rs^|55,535/- (Rupees Fifty thousaSfd^five hundred thirty five) only whiclfis yet^) recovered stands recoverable sihfedt neit^r^elongs^^the^employe^rfot to the employer but belongs to tax payerslas^has been broadly defined^n the order pronounced by the Honhle Supreme Couht^in-itsso|4er*imtHSxase of State of Punjab 86 ors. - vs.- Rafiq Masih.
In view of the foregoing, the recoverable amount as stated above if recovered in ten equal instalments from her salary per month it will not lead to any hardship to her.
This disposes of the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 21.7.16 after honouring the order of the Hon'ble Court and upholding the natural justice and equity.
(Ravi Kumar) Sr. Divl. Personnel Officer 86 Respondent No.3 Eastern Railway Sealdah"
U;
5 o.a. 350.00162.2019 yv From the speaking order, the following is inferred:
(a) The applicant has been promoted as the Office Superintendent with the respondent authorities.
(b)That, over the period April, 2014 to June, 2015, the applicant was granted LAP for 86 numbers of days and LHAP for 116 days by the competent authority. That, her earlier records of service also shows that the^apjSlic&ht iS^iH^he. habit of remaining absent on salary.
, it wasj^t&cted that feve leave of tim^^d, fence, i i ,Aere was q 'W ' ! ■ i 1, t (d)^jat, such^||emp$ ;rom the salary of the mi u I *t^rlicant °n the tmtai as %admiliirfativfehpructions.
(6) That, no "Rfi^ial show^cause not-icrwas iJsued^to th^; applicant % . % kihv.
but liea^U^antT ik|^^!eihg'^Ld^i aw/^e^bf ^li^bverpayment,
- ■ had verball^^questedNihatsdaesaahdunt be^ecovered in suitable instalments.
According to the respondents, a show-cause notice should have been issued to the applicant before recovery of excess payment but, as the recovery has already started, issue of show-cause notice at this stage would be infructuous and, particularly, when the entire matter of 6 o.a. 350.00162.2019 // overpayment on account of excess leave was made known to the f/ applicant.
The applicant has objected to the speaking order on the grounds that no show-cause notice was issued or any opportunity of hearing was ever accorded to the applicant prior to initiation of such recovery and also that despite their averments in their speaking order dated 2.9.2016, the respondents are deducting a higher amount from her salary.
7. The crux of the matter herein' Ts^that, as admitted by the s'" & respondents, prior to ensiMi^ the ■ticayfey3h^appfeant ought to have %"n m •* -
■ - S' Jr# &
" §■# -*% •
been issued" a .show-cause
how-cause notice. She wouldirrhen have had an f fcJSF ri& ^ opportunity to%SBut and .cb^Bmert Slheisa^lk,
8.
/
J^ccoi^gly,
jpcW 11 /'ik. wr
to^llr %show-
%
^^pffieipt of ^J'py If this
J noigg to the Mpli^^fe^^nJfcgwd^Sjfe&eipt ord|r wg^details o edeav^M mmi Sie^ippwant and fee le^e at herfere<^jks per re&'dah i' 1ent. The ^jplicant ^ I is jp2?! r' M | therlafjsrjterected to fepd^o. tice within ihreejjfeeks !| :1: of receipt and the|SSffpe^^^ApG receiving the \ * reply df^the ^gl|^nf^^^ich show-cause^jndf^ t decide on the erifere matter^f overbayment^and^b^riseQueht rej^overfand issue ■% Sfc. ^rkson&f'^l'Sn ^ a speaking and thin three weeks % thereafter.
If the applicant does not reply to the show cause within scheduled time, or is not able to controvert the basis of overpayment, the respondents will be at liberty to continue recovering the balance amount of her salary as per rules until and unless the entire amount is recovered from the applicant. If, however, the applicant is able to satisfy the respondent authorities on the fact that there was. no justifiable cause leading to overpayment of salary, and, that, she was entitled to her full 7 o.a. 350.00162.2019 salary with particular reference to her leave records, the respondents will K be liable to refund the recovered amount to the applicant and stop further recovery hereafter. Till the disposal of the applicant's reply to. the show cause notice, the recoveiy will be stayed and will resume upon disposal.
8. With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Nandit^ChMtSS) Administrative Member wXpX2£ SP