The disciplinary authority, after examining the report of the Enquiry Officer and companysidering the respondents representation, has companye to the companyclusion that various quantities of wheat and rice were deducted from the stock register by the respondent by making entries in his own handwriting unauthorisedly on various dates specified therein and stating in his own handwriting that damage was caused due to rate and heavy rain.
Thereafter in his Order, the disciplinary authority has observed that as the delinquent is due to retire very soon from service on 30 6 91, a lenient view is taken and a stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect is Ordered for the gross negligence and unauthorized entries in the stock register.
51,300/ which has been caused by misappropriation of the stock of food grains be recovered in one lump sum from the respondent before his retirement on superannuation failing which the entire amount will be recovered from his retirement benefits.
After examining his representation, the disciplinary authority, namely, the District Collector passed a final Order dated 4 6 91.
The Tribunal set aside the Order of the disciplinary authority dated 4 6 91 in so far as it inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
The first charge was related to his making unauthorized entries of deduction in the stock register on various dates relating to different quantities of food grains as specified in the charge.
After hearing the respondent and examining the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 13 11 1989 holding the respondent guilty of the charges.
There was a loss of 30 metric tons of wheat and 3 metric tons of rice valued at Rs.
On 18 9 88, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry.
The second charge was that he was responsible for a large scale misappropriation of food stock in his custody and the third charge was that by his above action, he has caused loss to the Government.
He was transferred to Kumbakonam Block and was relieved in the afternoon of 8 7 1986.
Another penalty which can be imposed under Rule 8 v a is recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the State Government by negligence or breach of Orders.
The District Collector set aside the Order of the Block Development Officer and directed him to pass appropriate Orders after holding a proper enquiry.
He, thereafter, in December, 1992, filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the above Orders.
The Tribunal has purported to pass the Order on the ground that three punishments cannot be imposed for the same charge.
During the period when the respondent was working as Block Level Accountant at Valangaiman, it was found that there was shortage in the stocks of wheat and rice.
The respondent retired on 30 6 1991.
The period of suspension was also directed to be treated as service period but without pay.
He was served with a chargesheet companytaining three charges.
Thereupon, initially the Block Development Officer issued Orders for recovery of the amount from the respondent.
The Tribunal also directed the appellant to pay the respondents salary for the period of suspension.
The disciplinary authority has held that all the charges have been proved against the respondent.
It thus modified the punishment imposed.
The disciplinary authority has also directed that the loss of Rs.
The respondent was thereupon given a further hearing by the District Collector while companysidering the Enquiry Officers report.
The respondent was also given an opportunity to make a representation against the findings in the Enquiry Officers report.
The respondent was working as a Block Level Accountant in 1986 in Valangaiman.
This defence of the respondent has been disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the disciplinary authority.
One of the penalties under Rule 8 is a withholding of increments.
The appeal of the respondent was dismissed.
51,300/ .
