The disciplinary authority must adhere to principles of natural justice and conduct a proper inquiry before imposing penalties, as arbitrary actions can be challenged in court.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1 imposing a penalty of censure for recovery of Rs.1,24,396/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by respondent No.2 by which, the appeal filed by him was rejected. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petition to review the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was rejected.

2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.1 - Corporation during the year 1976 and retired from service with effect from 30.10.2010. The petitioner contends that when he received his retirement benefits, he was surprised to note that a sum of Rs.1,24,396/- was recovered from it on the ground that the petitioner had wrongly claimed reimbursement of medical bills for himself and his spouse by producing documents that were not valid. The petitioner contends that he and his wife were diagnosed with diabetes and hypertension since 01.12.2006 and he and his wife were claiming reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by them. The petitioner contended that on production of necessary documents, respondent No.1 used to reimburse the medical bills claimed by him. When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 issued a Memorandum dated 16.07.2010 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be initiated against him on the ground that the "Prolonged Disease Certificates" enclosed with the medical bills for the period from 08.09.2009 to 07.10.2009 for himself and from 08.09.2009 to 07.10.2009 for his wife, were not signed by the competent HOD at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 26.07.2010. However, respondent No.1 not satisfied with the reply, issued a Memorandum dated 30.10.2010 proposing to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Regulation 60 of FCI Staff Regulation for contravening Articles 31, 32, 73 (2A). An Article of Charges was enclosed with it, which is extracted below:

"ARTICLE I

Shri. N.Rajasekaraiah, AG I [D], presently working at FSD, KRPG of FCI, District Office, Bangalore has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation in as much as he has submitted forty four Medical Bills for treatment undertaken as outpatient for himself and his dependents without any valid documents for personal gains.

ARTICLE II

The aforesaid four bills presented by Shri.N.Rajasekaraiah, AG I [D], found on further verification to be supported by prolonged illness certificate signed by a Medical Officer who is not the authorized HOD of Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore as was subsequently ascertained on inquiry with the said Hospital and thus Shri.N.Rajasekaraiah, AG I [D], has deliberately misled the Corporation by producing the aforesaid invalid/dubious documents for his personal gains of Rs 1,24,396 [Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand three hundred and ninety six only] being the amount paid to him towards his medical claims for the aforesaid four medical bills as per the details in the annexure."

3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Article of Charges on 12.11.2010. The respondent No.1, not satisfied by the reply to the Article of Charges, passed an order dated 31.12.2010 "censuring" the petitioner and directed recovery of Rs.1,24,396/-. The petitioner contends that the penalty imposed upon him was without granting an opportunity to establish his innocence and respondent No.1 had passed an order, without following the due process and without complying the principles of natural justice, in as much as documents that were not furnished to the petitioner were relied on to hold that the charges framed were proved. He contended that respondent No.1 never insisted upon such OPD slips in the previous years when the medical claims were reimbursed and therefore,