Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
DR. S.P. RAM – Petitioner
Versus
NATIONAL SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANOTHER – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 1898, 3053 of 2010 & 13320 of 2009
Decided On : 23-03-2017
Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Services - Article 226 - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [Investment of Surplus Funds, Negligence, and Discrimination] - [Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Companies Act, 1956] - The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the appropriate authority to impose a penalty on the petitioners equivalent to the punishment imposed on another individual involved in the same incident. The court emphasized the principle of parity among co-delinquents and held that there should be no discrimination in the imposition of punishment based on the same set of facts and charges.
Fact of the Case:
The three petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the disciplinary authorities imposing the punishment of removal from services. The petitioners were alleged to have made reckless and unsound commercial decisions by investing surplus funds in a sinking company, resulting in a substantial loss. They were also accused of failing to invest idle funds, causing a loss of potential income. The petitioners argued that they were discriminated against as the Chairman of the Investment Committee received a lesser punishment for similar charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petitions, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-delinquents and held that there should be no discrimination in the imposition of punishment based on the same set of facts and charges. The court directed the appropriate authority to impose a penalty on the petitioners equivalent to the punishment imposed on another individual involved in the same incident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were discriminated against in the imposition of punishment for similar charges compared to the Chairman of the Investment Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there should be no discrimination in the imposition of punishment based on the same set of facts and charges. The principle of parity among co-delinquents should be maintained when imposing punishment, and it should not be disproportionate based on the involvement of the individuals in the same incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the appropriate authority to impose a penalty on the petitioners equivalent to the punishment imposed on another individual involved in the same incident.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed by three petitioners, namely Dr. S.P. Ram, Sh. Nand Kishore and Sh. S.S. Nayagam, impugning the orders of the departmental authorities being the disciplinary authorities and the appellate authorities, whereby these petitioners have been imposed the punishment of removal from services.
2. So far as the petitioner Dr. S.P. Ram in W.P. (C) No. 3053/2010 is concerned, the order of the disciplinary authority is dated 22.6.2007 and the order of the appellate authority is dated 25.5.2009. So far as the petitioner Sh. Nand Kishore in W.P. (C) No. 13320/2009 is concerned, the order of the disciplinary authority is dated 28.7.2006 and the order of the appellate authority is dated 28.6.2007. In the case of Sh. S.S. Nayagam in W.P. (C) No. 1898/2010, the order of the disciplinary authority is dated 27.12.2005 and the order of the appellate authority is dated 3.10.2006.
3. I may note that in all the three cases, the three petitioners had filed review petitions before the concerned authorities and which were dismissed. Therefore finally all the three petitioners have been imposed the punishment of removal from services.
4. For the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts of W.P. (C) No. 3053/2010 inasmuch as except with respect to dates of the charge-sheets and the different dates of the orders of the departmental authorities, the facts and issues are the same. The Articles of Charges in the case of Dr. S.P. Ram read as under:-
“3. Article of Charges
The article of charges framed against Shri Dr. S.P. Ram, Executive Director, NSFDC, New Delhi.
Article of charge-I:
Dr. S.P. Ram while functioning as the Executive Director and a Member of the Investment Committee, National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation (NSFDC) during the period June 1997 to September 1999, took reckless and unsound commercial decisions by investing a total amount of Rs.15.00 crore of the NSFDC in a sinking company Punjab Wireless System Ltd. (PWSL), as a result a huge amount of Rs.15.00 crore of the surplus funds of the NSFDC was lost.
Dr. S.P. Ram by his above acts filed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty, committed the acts unbecoming of a public servant failed to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of the employees under his control and authority, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation caused neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty and thus contravened Rules 4.1(i), 4.1(ii), 4.1(iii), 4.2, 5.5, 5.9 and 5.30 of the NSFDC Conduct, Discipline and Appellate Rules, 1990.
Article of charge-II:
Besides causing the specific loss of Rs.15.00 crore of the NSFDC’s surplus funds in the Punjab Wireless Systems Ltd. Dr. S.P. Ram Executive Director being a Member of the NSFDC Investment Committee caused loss of a substantial amount of interest to the NSFDC by delayed investments of the NSFDC’s surplus funds, during the period September 1996 to March 2001 when amounts exceeding Rs.5.00 crore were kept un-invested beyond 15 days on account of which, the NSFDC lost a substantial amount of interest which it could have earned by investing its surplus funds in short term deposits during the said period. Being ED and Member of the Investment Committee, Dr. S.P. Ram did not take due care to make proper utilization of the Corporation’s surplus funds by investing these funds in short term deposits and thereby earning income for the Corporation by way of interest on these investments.
Dr. S.P. Ram by his above acts filed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, committed the acts unbecoming of a public servant, failed to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of the employees under his control and authority, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation, caused neglect to work or negligence in the performance of duty and thus contravened Rules 4.1(i), 4.1(ii), 4.1(iii),
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
