Ajit Singh, J.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 27.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has allowed WP (C) No.304/2010 of Respondent No.1 Mohd. Nasimuddin Ansari and quashed the minor penalty of recovery of loss from him.

2. Facts in short are these. During the relevant time, Respondent No.1 was serving as Manager, Inventory Group with the appellants. He was Stock Holder of Shed No. 12, Eastern Stores Division (ESD), General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), Tezpur. And on 20.09.2004, he reported loss of 299 plungers and barrels of Cummins Engine of Fuel Injection Pump (D50 Bull Dozer). On this complaint, a special board of officers was convened by the Commanding Officer to carry out physical verification of the stock in Shed No.12. After physical verification, 13 items of worth Rs.14,04,343/- were found missing. Thereafter, on 25.9.2004, Respondent No.1 handed over the charge of Shed No.12 to one another officer, who later reported some more deficiencies. In the result, physical verification of stock was again made whereafter the value of missing items was quantified at Rs.18,28,081.56/-.

3. The discovery of missing items in large quantity led to convening of court of inquiry, which determined and quantified the loss of worth Rs.19,83,468.49/-. The court of inquiry also held that the loss was on account of failure in the performance of duties by 8 officers including Respondent No.1.

4. The findings of Court of Inquiry was placed before Appellant No.2, the Director General, Border Roads, who issued certain directions on 02.11.2007. One direction was that Respondent No.1 be called upon to pay Rs.49,587/- i.e. 2.5 % of the total loss towards making good part of the loss and reasons be asked for from him in the event of his unwillingness to pay the amount. Another direction of Appellant No.2 was that suitable disciplinary proceedings be initiated against Respondent No.1 and two other officers under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short "1965 Rules").

5. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, subjected to disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to which, he was served with a statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour dated 8.5.2008 against which he made his representation dated 9.6.2008. The disciplinary authority however did not agree with the explanation of Respondent No.1 and concluded that the charge framed against Respondent No.1 stood conclusively proved. And on this finding, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 8.12.2009 imposed a minor penalty of recovery of 20% of loss amount of Rs.19,83,468.49/- from the salary of Respondent No.1 in 100 equal monthly instalments effective from December, 2009. Aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed WP (C) No.304/2010 which the learned Single Judge has allowed by the impugned order and quashed the order of penalty. The learned Single Judge has held that procedure prescribed under Rule 15 (3) read with Rule 16 of 1965 Rules was not followed by the disciplinary authority before imposing the penalty. The learned Single Judge has also found the second physical stock verification of Shed No.12 in the month of November, 2004 questionable because before that verification, the respondent had already handed over its charge on 25.9.2004 to another officer. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

6. It is argued on behalf of appellants that the learned Single Judge completely misread and misinterpreted the requirements of Rule 15 (3) read with 16 of 1965 Rules in holding that procedure prescribed therein was not followed. On the other hand, the respondents vehemently defended the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Rule 11 of 1965 Rules enumerates the penalties that may be imposed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons. Minor penalties are mentioned from Clause (i) to (iv). Recovery