Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1843
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Shri Bishamber Nath
Versus
Union Of India & Another
WP(C). 6614 OF 1998
Decided on : 28-08-2012
For the Petitioner:Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. instructed by Ms. Saahila Lamba, Sanjeev Chaswal, & Amandeep Joshi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
The court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was unjustified due to the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the conclusive nature of the note of disagreement, lack of reasons in the penalty order, and the absence of a finding that the misconduct was of a grave nature.
Headnote:
Negligence - Departmental Inquiry - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner, a retired Assistant Commandant, was charged with negligence in supervising the maintenance of accounts and failure to exercise due supervision over a cashier, resulting in embezzlement. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of 20% cut in pension for three years. The petitioner challenged the penalty, citing delay in concluding the proceedings, the note of disagreement being conclusive, and lack of reasons in the penalty order. The court allowed the petition, quashing the penalty and directing payment of the withheld pension with interest. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found the penalty unjustified due to the delay in proceedings, the conclusive nature of the note of disagreement, lack of reasons in the penalty order, and the absence of a finding that the misconduct was of a grave nature. [ISSUES] Delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, conclusive note of disagreement, lack of reasons in penalty order, and absence of finding of grave misconduct. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the penalty was unjustified due to the factors mentioned above. [FINAL DECISION] The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was set aside, and the withheld pension was directed to be paid with interest.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Pithily stated the factual matrix concerning the writ petition is that in the year 1984 the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Commandant in CRPF and posted at Group Centre-I, CRPF, Ajmer where he was performing the duties of Accounts Officer. At that time, Additional DIGP S.P.Sharma, Insp.(M) D.H.Karamchandani and SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma were working as Head of Office, Head Clerk (Budget) and Cashier respectively. Whereas the petitioner was the in-charge of Accounts Section, Insp.(M) D.H.Karamchandani was responsible for the proper functioning of cash section of the Group Centre. SI Ram Gopal Sharma used to work under the supervision of the petitioner and Insp.(M)D.H. Karamchandani.
2. In the year 1984, SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma, the cashier, is stated to have had embezzled money at the Group Centre-I. A Court of Inquiry was convened to inquire into the alleged embezzlement committed by SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma, which Court of Inquiry submitted its report in the year 1996 and blamed the petitioner, Addl.DIGP S.P.Sharma and Insp.(M) D.H.Karamchandani for lack of supervision and negligence. No evidence of said three officers being a party to the embezzlement surfaced.
3. Nearly 4 years thereafter, on August 07, 1990 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner for initiating an inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with respect to the embezzlement of money stated to have been committed by SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma. Relevant portion of the charge as also statement of imputation reads as under:-
“That during the year 1984 Shri Bishambar Nath working as Asstt. Commandant GC-I, CRPF, Ajmer failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in as much as:
He unauthorizedly allowed Shri R.G. Sharma to keep key of the Treasury Chest with him. He also allowed Shri R.G.Sharma to keep cash and fresh DDs favoring payee(s) to obtained against encashment of DDs received from H.O. and made false entries in this regard in Cash Book.
That on the dates given below Shri Bishambar Nath falsely certified payment of DD is
given against the state to concerned payees, where as no payment was made to payees.
……
No request was sent to State Bank of India, Ajmer for preparing the said DDs in favor of payees and therefore DDs were not issued by the Bank in favor of payees.
A D.D. No.T.T./A-22-890584 dt. 18.6.84 for Rs.3,745/-was received for disbursement to following persons:-
…..
Shri Ram Gopal was unauthorizedly allowed to take away DD TT/A-22-890584 for encashment and cash was falsely verified on 25.7.84 and 26.7.84 that no transaction took place whereas DD was encashed on 25.7.84 by Shri Bishambar Nath.
…..
D.D. No.DL/A-9-161976 dt. 9.3.84 for Rs.14,109.43 was received for making payment to above mentioned payees. It was got encashed by Shri Bishambar Nath on 11.4.84. Shri Bishambar Nath falsely verified Cash Book showing pendency of D.D. No. DL/A-9-161976 in Cash Chest till 11.7.84 and he thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3 & 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
4. An Inquiry Officer was nominated by the Disciplinary Authority who submitted a report on 31.10.1991 exonerating the petitioner. The relevant portion of the report of the Inquiry Officer reads as under:-
“6.20 From a study of the rule position and the oral evidence as discussed above, it is apparent that the primary responsibility for the embezzlement lies with the Cashier. The task of checking each transaction entered in the Cash Book with reference to the basic records lies with the Head Clerk (Budget). The CO’s role was supervisory in respect of the transaction, and he was primarily concerned with the entries on the credit side. It has also come on record that the CO as Asstt. Commandant (A/O) has to attend to multifarious duties as second in command of the Group Centre, Ajmer vide para 2.3(1-
11) of CRPF GC & B officers Manual available in Ex.S-39. The documents like Ex.D-1 and D-2 and S-4 clearly indicate that the mi
