ORDER

Per Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, JM:

Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under SecƟon 19 of the AdministraƟve Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) An order do issue seƫng aside and/or quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 18.12.2003 issued by A.P. Jain (DQAS).

(b) An order do issue seƫng aside the Disciplinary order No. A/99677/Misc/2/DGQA (Vig Cell)/84 dated 05.09.2006.

( c) An order do issue seƫng aside the appellate order dated 11.02.2008 issued by under Secretary to the Government of India in the name of the President.

(d) An order do issue seƫng aside the recovery order dated 10.01.2013 issued by Area Accounts Officer.

(e ) An order do issue direcƟng the respondent to set aside the disagreement note issue in the name of President.

(f ) Any other relief/reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal thing fit and proper.

(g) Cost incidental thereto.”

3. At the outset, it is apt to menƟon that a disciplinary proceeding was insƟtuted against the applicant by imposing a major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 in respect to the charges levelled against the applicant vide charge sheet dated 18.12.2003. On denial of charges, a departmental enquiry was ordered and the applicant parƟcipated in the said enquiry. On conclusion of enquiry, IO submiƩed his enquiry report wherein he recorded his findings that the charges partly proved but the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the said findings.

4. Learned counsel for applicant would draw our aƩenƟon to the disagreement note since the enquiry was insƟtuted based on the CEC advise and invesƟgaƟon. The DA had also sought 2nd stage advise from CEC and had supplied the copy of disagreement note along with CEC note. The applicant has submiƩed his representaƟon on 10.01.2006 against disagreement memo dated 30.011.2005. AŌer the said representaƟon and materials on record of the enquiry, the DA concluded with findings that the charges levelled against the applicant is proved. Accordingly, D.A has imposed the penalty vide order dated 05.09.2006.

5. Being aggrieved with such penalty order dated 05.09.2006, the applicant had filed an appeal dated 25.10.2006 through proper channel before the SQAO, SQAE(GS), Kolkata. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2008. Further, it is required to be menƟoned that in terms of penalty order, pay of the applicant was fixed accordingly and to that extent the applicant has not raised any objecƟon in respect to the penalty order issued by the Disciplinary Authority which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

6. It emerges from the record that in the year 2013, the Audit authoriƟes detected that the office has erroneously restored the increment of the applicant and thereaŌer the respondents had issued order dated 10/14.01.2013 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 69002/- which was paid as excess due to restoraƟon/refixaƟon of pay of the applicant while implemenƟng the penalty order issued by the Disciplinary Authority.

7. The respondents have filed their reply in the OA and in para 12, it is specifically averred that recovery was made in 12th equal installments as per consent of the applicant vide leƩer dated 06.08.2013. At this stage, it is also required to be menƟoned that in respect to the pay fixaƟon, the applicant has submiƩed his representaƟon dated 24.01.2013 wherein he has not raised any grievance or objecƟon in respect to the legality of the penalty order issued by the Disciplinary Authority as referred hereinabove.

8. The applicant has filed his rejoinder and aƩempted to defense the submission in respect to the legality of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority as well as the grievance against the recovery of Rs. 69002/- on implementaƟon of penalty order.

9. Considering the factual matrix as stated hereinabove, it appears that the penalty order dated 05.09.2006 passed