Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HRISHIKESH ROY & NELSON SAILO, JJ.
Sri Upendra Nath Misra – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Science and Technology – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 3292 of 2012
Decided On : 10-01-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.K. Das.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.P. Choudhury.
Headnote:
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - CCR (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) - Camp Officer - Claimed false contingent bills on account of wages – Charged - Pertains to a disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct of respondent during his posting as Camp Officer - In charge memo, drawn up on (Annexure-1), under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 five charges were leveled and for purpose of present discussion, it will suffice to extract charges - Camp Officer in during period December said with malafide intention prepared fictitious muster rolls of those porters who were not at all engaged and also prepared muster rolls for much longer period of those porters who were engaged for much shorter period and claimed false contingent bills on account of wages of these porters on various occasions during period - Thus the said failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violating Rule - While functioning as Camp Officer in field Camp of No. 29 Party (NEC) claimed in contingent bill bus fare paid to 37 porters from Tezu to Shillong on close of field, but payment was made to 6 porters and no fare was paid at all to remaining 31 porters - Thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violating – Held, It cannot also be overlooked that delinquent was a recent recruit and was on probation during concerned period of 5 (five) months, when he was deployed for survey work in Lohit district - He explained circumstance under which he arranged for refund of alleged to have been misappropriated through maintenance of incorrect muster roll records - But possibility of an inexperienced employee being forced to make good loss at the nascent stage of his career on being prompted by seniors in the organization, was totally ignored - Instead this act of refund of amount was found to be an act of admission of guilt by delinquent - If acquaintance roll and muster roll (Exihibit-52) maintained by the 8 (eight) verifiers reflect that extra labours were engaged as was corroborated by oral evidence of the witnesses, it is not logical to conclude that the delinquent had produced fictitious records to show payment of wages to non-existence porters - In fact no reasonable evidence is seen here to connect the delinquent with the allegation - As regard the Order of the Tribunal, challenged in this proceeding, what is noticed is that Tribunal failed to examine case on merit and took a shortcut. The learned Tribunal was prompted to reach a quick conclusion on account of deposit of excess wages/reimbursement by petitioner for hiring excess porters - There was no examination and appreciation of evidences led against charges or whether finding in disciplinary enquiry was based on cogent and relevant evidence - Therefore in our assessment, the learned Tribunal as noted earlier has failed to examine merit of challenge in accordance with legal duty and therefore we declare that impugned order - Petition stands allowed
1. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, the learned counsel representing the petitioner. The respondents are represented by the learned Central Govt. lawyer Mr. S.P. Choudhury.
2. The matter pertains to a disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct of the respondent during his posting as Camp Officer in Arunachal Pradesh from December, 1996 to April, 1997. In the charge memo, drawn up on 17.1.2001 (Annexure-1), under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCS Rules’), five charges were leveled and for the purpose of present discussion, it will suffice to extract the charges, under Article-I, IV and V, for ready reference:-
“Statement of Articles of charge framed against Shri U.N. Mishra, Superintending Surveyor, O.C. No. 5 Party (NEC), Survey of India, Shillong.
ARTICLE-I
That the said Shri U.N. Mishra, Superintending Surveyor while posted as Deputy Superintending Surveyor, No. 12 Party (NEC) was attached to No. 29 Party (NEC) and appointed as Camp Officer of Camp No. 1 during field season 1996—97.
While performing the duties of the Camp Officer in Arunachal Pradesh during the period December, 1996 to April, 1997, the said Shri U.N. Mishra with malafide intention prepared fictitious muster rolls of those porters who were not at all engaged and also prepared muster rolls for much longer period of those porters who were engaged for much shorter period and claimed false contingent bills on account of wages of these porters on various occasions during the period from 12-12-1996 to 09-04-1997. Thus the said Shri U.N. Mishra failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violating Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCR (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
.........................................
ARTICLE-III
.........................................
ARTICLE-IV
That the said Shri U.N. Mishra, Superintending Surveyor, O.C. No. 5 Party (NEC), Survey of India, Shillong, while functioning as Camp Officer in the field Camp of No. 29 Party (NEC) claimed in contingent bill bus fare paid to 37 porters from Tezu to Shillong on the close of the field, but the payment was made to 6 porters and no fare was paid at all to remaining 31 porters. Thus Shri U.N. Mishra failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violating Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCR (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-V
That the said Shri U.N. Mishra, Superintending Surveyor, O.C. No. 5 Party (NEC), Survey of India, Shillong, while function as Camp Officer in the field Camp of No. 29 Party (NEC) sold 246 Kgs of sugar in the open market at market rate for personal gain, whereas the sugar was purchased from Arunachal Pradesh Govt. Ration shop for distribution amongst camp personnel. Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violating Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCR (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
3. The disciplinary authority proposed to prove the charge by placing reliance on the muster rolls for the concerned period submitted by the Camp Officer and the eight verifiers. The Superintending Surveyor who is higher in hierarchy above the delinquent and the surveyor who is below him, were named amongst the list of witnesses to prove the charges.
4. In his written response given on 12.3.2001 (Annexure-2), the delinquent spoke about his inexperience as a new recruit and stated that he admitted to the Charge-I only because, he was assured by the Director, NEC that the entire matter will be closed, if the amount involved in the alleged irregular transaction was made good. Similar advise was tendered by the Additional Surveyor General, East Zone and that is how the delinquent arranged for making good the alleged loss (Rs.79,126/-) to the organization. But in substance, all the charges were denied by the delinquent in his written response.
5. Dissatisfied with the reply, an Inq
