SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13303

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Mr. Ram Mohan Johri, A
Sh Mohd Yousef Itoo – Appellant
Versus
D/o Sheep Husbandry Ut Of J&k – Respondent
Transfer Application No.61/3736/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. O.P. Thakur
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned A.A.G.

The tribunal upheld the recovery orders against an employee for alleged misconduct, affirming the authority to impose penalties under administrative control and determining adequate opportunity for defense was provided during inquiry.

Headnote:(A) J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 - Rule 30 and 35 - Recovery of amounts from employee without due process - Recovery orders issued against the applicant for alleged irregularities and penalties were challenged on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. (Paras 3 through 12).

(B) Natural Justice - Adequate opportunity not given to the petitioner for defending the allegations leading to recovery orders - Court observed that proceedings were initiated according to relevant audit findings and inquiries. (Paras 10 and 11).

(C) Jurisdiction - Respondent no. 3 was not the appointing authority and thus lacked the authority to impose penalties upon the applicant - Tribunal affirmed the authority of respondent no. 3 as controlling officer to conduct inquiry and issue recovery orders under administrative control. (Paras 12).

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged recovery orders issued based on alleged irregularities in the maintenance of records and misuse of resources, arguing that no fair inquiry was conducted nor was he given adequate opportunity to defend against specific charges.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal held that the applicant was aware of the inquiries and had been given chances to respond to allegations, thus the recovery orders were valid.

Issues: Main issues included whether the respondent had authority to issue recovery orders without the applicant's notice and if sufficient opportunities were given as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal reasoned that the due process of law had been more or less followed under the administrative framework established by the J&K Civil Service Rules, even though challenges regarding procedural fairness were raised.

Result: T.A. dismissed.

Table of Content
1. transfer of a case from high court to tribunal (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the applicant's service and promotions (Para 3 , 4)
3. recovery orders and applicant's defense (Para 5 , 6)
4. allegations of irregularities and procedural fairness (Para 7 , 8)
5. decision upholding the validity of recovery orders (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2102/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/3736/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

“(i) The office order endorsement No. DSHO/RBN/2018-19/1675-85 dated 08.09.2018 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby the recovery has been ordered to be made and penalty imposed for an amount of Rs. 99119/-.

(ii) The communication No. DSHO/Rbn/2018-19/1453-57 dated 20.08.2018 whereby an amount of Rs. 39329/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and Dr. G.M. Bali on 50% basis as being constitutional, illegal and without jurisdiction.

With

A further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents from making the aforesaid recovery from the petitioner.

Costs of the petition with such other additional or alternate relief, which this Hon'ble court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper, be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows:

a. That the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Citizen of India. He is, therefore, entitled to the protection of fundamental, statutory and other legal rights in force in the State.

b. That the petitioner was appointed as Shepherd on 21-2- 1978. Subsequently, on the basis of his hard work and devotion towards the duties, he was promoted as Stock Assistant on 10-8-1982. The said promotion order was issued by respondent No. 2. Subsequently, he was placed as Incharge Flock Inspector in his own pay and grade by the respondent No. 2 pending clearance by the DPC with charge allowance vide order No. 218-SHDJ of 2017 dated 17-10-2017 and was adjusted at Sheep Breeding Farm, Chanderkote where he joined on 18-10-2017. Subsequently, he has been regularized against the said post of Flock Inspector on permanent basis in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 + GP 4220 (pre-revised) vide order No. 88-SHDJ of 2018 dated 4-6-2018 issued by respondent No. 2 with effect from 17-10-2017. The promotion order of the petitioner as Flock Inspector is not presently available with the petitioner. However, the relevant part of the service book of the petitioner on which the entries in respect of his promotion and the aforesaid orders have been made is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A.

c) That it is specifically submitted that the appointing authority for the posts of Flock Supervisors and Flock Inspectors is Director Sheep Husbandry, Jammu. As submitted above, the petitioner has been promoted as Flock Supervisor as well as Flock Inspector by respondent No. 2.

d) That to the surprise of the petitioner the order/communication No. DSHO/Rbn/2018-19/1453-57 dated 20-8-2018 was served upon the petitioner whereby the recovery of Rs. 39329/- including 10% penalty has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and one Dr. G. M. Bali on account of so called excess medicines.

e) In the aforesaid communication it has been alleged that great loss to Government exchequer had been made by misuse of medicines. It has further been stated that the petitioner was liable to be punished under rules besides recovery of excess medicines. In the said communication/ order dated 20-8-2018, it has been stated that the petitioner was asked to clear the position on the said so called irregularities vide letters referred to therein.

f) It has further been stated that the petitioner and Dr. G. M. Bali was asked to explain vide letter dated 9-7-2018. It is submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top