Compliance with the procedure under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the permissibility of recovery from the gratuity under Rule 11 (iii) of the Rules.

P. Govindan Nair, C.J.

1. The petitioner is a Head Sorter in the Railway Mail Service attached to the Sub Record Office, Cochin Sorting Air, Cochin. The punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,440 from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 40 per mensem and the balance from the gratuity amount due to him had been imposed on him by Ext. P-3 order for the alleged negligence, dereliction of duty and slack supervision and disregard of instructions and rules. It is further alleged that as a result of the abovementioned conduct of the petitioner, theft of ten insured articles worth Rs. 6,100 occurred.

2. The procedure adopted before imposing the punishment was that prescribed by rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for short, the Rules. This Rule only requires that the Government servant should be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and further that he should be given a reasonable opportunity of making such representations as he may wish to make against the proposal. Ext. P-1 which is styled Memo was issued to the petitioner along with Ext. P-1 (a), statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour. The petitioner made his representations Ext. P-2. It is admittedly after considering Ext. P-2 that the order Ext. P-3 had been passed.

3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order Ext. P-1 should not be allowed to stand in view of the fact that no specific notice had been issued to the petitioner regarding the imposition of the penalty of recovery from the pay and gratuity which, it is said, would involve pecuniary loss to the petitioner. According to him, before such punishment is imposed, there must be a specific notice stating that it is proposed to recover the amount from his salary. Counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Naidu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 240, B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2472 and State of Punjab v. K. P, Erry and Sobhag Raj Metha A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 834.

In the first of these cases, the question that arose for consideration was whether the order under rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules was validly passed without giving an opportunity to the Government servant to make his representations. The Supreme Court held that as an order under the Rule involved pecuniary loss to the Government servant such an order should not have been passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant to make his representations. This is the same principle as what we stated in a case decided earlier in Assistant Educational Officer, Kuttipuram v. Mohammed 1967 K.L.T. 388 and in a more recent ruling in O. P. No. 1120 of 1969 and in that decision we have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Naidu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 240. The principle of these decisions will not enable the petitioner to contend that there should be a second show cause notice before punishment contemplated by rule 11 (iii) of the Rule is imposed. This is a punishment which can be imposed on a Government servant after complying with the procedure contemplated by rule 16 of the Rules. This Rule, as already stated, insists that the Government servant should be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken. Whether this rule has been complied with, I shall see presently but regarding the contention based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishna Naidu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 240, it has to be stated that the principle has no application. The dicta of the Supreme Court in the decision in E. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2472 also is not helpful for deciding the question whether rule