VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

818 DECISION - 422
High Court set aside the order on the ground that he was not given
adequate opportunity of defending himself as he was not permitted
to examine witnesses nor was he supplied documents asked for by
him.
The Supreme Court observed that the respondent himself
by his statement dated 14.12.84 admitted to have received Rs.21,000
and odd and which could not be deposited by him on account of
carelessness and fault, that it could not have been brought about by
coercion and that the order sheet of the Inquiry Officer clearly shows
that the respondent stated that he did not want to give any
documentary or oral evidence and that the rejection of his request
later to examine four more witnesses considering it as an after thought
by the Inquiry Officer, was proper. Supreme Court held that the charge
stood proved on the admission and that the imposition of penalty of
dismissal was justified.
(422)
Recovery of loss (non-penal)
Recovery is one of the penalties but it does not mean
that recovery cannot be ordered otherwise, where
loss is due to negligence / omission / commission
of employee.
Rajesh Kumar Kapoor vs. Union of India,
1997(2) SLJ CAT JAIPUR 380
One of the penalties mentioned in Rule 6 of Railway Servants
(D&A) Rules is recovery of any loss that may be caused by an
employee to the organisation. It does not mean if any loss is to be
recovered on account of negligence or other acts of omission or
commission on the part of an employee, that can be done only by
initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant which must
culminate in imposition of minor penalty of recovery of loss on him.
That provision in Rule 6 simply means that one of the minor penalties