Insp/Gd Jitender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Insp/GD Jitender Singh, served as Manager of the Central Police Canteen (CPC) from June 2016 to September 2017. An audit in 2018 revealed irregularities, leading to a Preliminary Enquiry and subsequently a Court of Inquiry (COI) to ascertain losses and fix responsibility. The COI reported a net loss of Rs. 12,58,266/- for the Master Canteen and Rs. 3,23,944/- for the Subsidiary Canteen. Based on the COI, an order dated November 11, 2019, held the petitioner liable for a collective loss of Rs. 3,34,541/-, which was recovered from his salary. Separately, a joint Departmental Enquiry (DE) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was initiated against the petitioner and two others for alleged disobedience, laxity, and misconduct, including issuing illegal supply orders. The petitioner was absolved of these charges in the DE by an order dated October 18, 2021, as certain provisions were not fully proved. Despite being exonerated in the DE, his representations for a refund of the recovered amount were rejected.

Held

The Court held that while both the Court of Inquiry (COI) and the Departmental Enquiry (DE) emanated from the same set of facts, they were conducted for entirely different purposes and were separate proceedings. The COI was conducted to determine the loss caused to the CPC and recover it from personnel in charge, including the petitioner, who was the Manager at the relevant time. The DE was limited to enquiring into alleged fake and illegal supply orders made by three specific personnel, including the petitioner, and for which the petitioner was absolved. The Court found that the petitioner, as Manager, was rightly held liable for compensating the loss caused to the CPC canteens. Therefore, exoneration in the DE did not entitle the petitioner to any refund of the amount recovered under the COI. The recovery was pursuant to the COI for collective loss, and exoneration in the DE could not impact the amount recovered. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 3,34,541/- recovered from his salary, given his exoneration in the joint Departmental Enquiry (DE)? (Question of law and fact, turning on the relationship between the COI and DE proceedings and the effect of exoneration in the latter on recovery ordered in the former). Petitioner's arguments: The impugned orders are liable to be set aside because the petitioner was absolved of all charges in the joint DE, making the recovered amount refundable. The order dated November 11, 2019, was arbitrarily passed before the DE concluded, leading to illegal recovery. The rejection of refund requests based on the COI and DE being separate proceedings is contrary to the respondents' own statement that no further disciplinary action was needed due to the ongoing DE, indicating the proceedings were connected. Respondents' arguments: The petitioner is not entitled to a refund as the amount was recovered pursuant to the COI for collective loss caused to the CPC canteens due to the actions of named personnel, including the petitioner. The DE was conducted for separate charges against only three personnel, wherein only the petitioner was exonerated. Therefore, since the two proceedings were separate for separate charges, there was no nexus, and exoneration in the DE does not entitle the petitioner to a refund.