JUDGMENT :

V.K. AHUJA, J.

1. This is a civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CAT), dated 28.3.2001, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Post Master and during the year 1994, he was asked to give his explanation in regard to the reconciliation of Rs. 15,000/- since he had deleted the entries on 14.7.1990 during his posting. The explanation of the petitioner was considered and was only warned by order, dated 15.10.1994. Thereafter, a fresh memo was issued to the petitioner, dated 21.8.1997, vide which he was asked as to why action be not taken against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner replied to the said notice and after considering the material on record, an order was passed by his employer on 18.1.1999 that since he had caused a loss to the Department to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be recovered from the pay of the official in 36 instalments. On appeal, the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order, dated 5.7.1999. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned CAT by filing the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

4. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the earlier order of warning passed in 1994 amounted to a minor penalty within the provisions of the Rules and once the said penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, the matter could not have been reconsidered by the same officer after three years in 1997 and as such the order passed imposing penalty of recovery of the amount upon the petitioner, upheld by the Appellate Authority, was liable to be set aside. To substantiate his plea, it was also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initiation of the proceedings second time amounts to double jeopardy and once the petitioner has already been penalized, no fresh action could have been taken again and as such the impugned order passed by the learned CAT is liable to be set aside.

5. Before we refer to the relevant rules and case law, we would like to reproduce the orders passed by the various authorities, which deserve to be considered.

6. A perusal of letter, dated 17.9.1994, (Annexure P-4) shows that the following notice was issued to the petitioner by the Senior Post Master:

“You were posted as Assistant Post Master Sub Accounts with effect from 4.6.1990 to 5.6.1990, 2.7.1990 to 31.7.1990 and upto 27.9.1990. You failed to reconcile the amount of Rs. 15,000/- during the above period between the Mandal and Jubbal Sub Offices. Besides this, you deleted the entries of Rs. 15,000/- on 14.7.1990 against the Sub Office Jubbal. Therefore, you are directed to explain your position to the undersigned upto 24.9.1994.”

7. The Department had considered the reply filed by the petitioner and the following order was passed on 15.10.1994 (Annexure P-6), which reads as under:

“The employee was asked to give his explanation in this regard which has been tendered by the employee on 29.9.1994. The undersigned has gone through the said explanation. The employee has informed/written that he has not deleted the entries of this amount and there was no difference in the transit account. This explanation of the employee is not satisfactory, but the same is accepted because the employee is not directly defaulter for the misutilization of the said amount. Therefore, he is hereby warned severely and the same is hereby entered in his Memorandum of services.”

8. A notice was issued to the petitio