Point of Law: Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which Government servant pleads guilty.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of entire disciplinary proceedings alongwith the consequent action taken thereupon by the respondents against him, which culminated in his removal from service.

2. Facts

2(i) The petitioner was posted as Registration Clerk in Tehsil Office Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1995. An audit of accounts of this office was conducted by the audit party of the Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh in the year 1997. The audit party pointed out that an amount of Rs. 83,566/- collected by the petitioner as Registration Clerk of Tehsil Office Sarkaghat, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 09.06.1997 from various parties on different dates, had not been deposited in the Government treasury within the stipulated period.

2(ii) Memorandum of charge was issued against the petitioner on 02.07.1997. The charge levelled was that while serving as Registration Clerk, the petitioner had collected Rs.83,566/- on different dates w.e.f. 01.01.1997 to 09.06.1997 as Registration/Inspection fee from various parties, but did not deposit the same in Government Treasury till 15.05.1997 to 19.06.1997. The petitioner had misappropriated and embezzled the money for his personal gains. The petitioner furnished his reply on 21.10.1997, denying the charge. He also took up the stand that his actions were on the basis of the directions issued to him by the concerned Sub Registrar.

2(iii) Since the petitioner did not accept the charge, the respondent ordered for holding an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 16.12.1997. The petitioner handed a letter to the inquiry officer on 25.03.1998, admitting his guilt. In the aforesaid letter the delinquent officer-petitioner unequivocally accepted the charges levelled against him and submitted in writing that he alone was responsible for embezzlement of the amount. The amount mentioned in the charge sheet and additional amount in the nature of stamp duty of Rs.5870/- Rs.3780 and Rs.910/- were deposited by him beyond stipulated period. He also admitted that a sum of Rs.2500/-, collected for the District Relief Fund, was also deposited by him much after the stipulated period. After confessing his guilt, the petitioner requested in the letter to take a lenient view of the matter and to revoke his suspension. The petitioner did not stop there. He made a statement before the Inquiry Officer on 31.03.1998. In this statement, he reiterated and affirmed the contents of his previous letter furnished to the Inquiry Officer on 25.08.1998 and requested to drop the ongoing inquiry proceedings in view of his confession of the charge and admission of the guilt.

2(iv) The Inquiry Officer accordingly prepared the inquiry report, holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner for his comments. The petitioner in his reply submitted that he had accepted his guilt and hoped that the Authority would take lenient view of the matter so that his family does not suffer for his wrong doing. The Disciplinary Authority afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 14.08.1998. The petitioner accepted the charge before the Disciplinary Authority and prayed for leniency and forgiveness. The Disciplinary Authority held that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Government servant. Petitioner had shown tendency of being dishonest in the initial years of his service and brought disrepute to the office. The Disciplinary Authority deemed it fit to impose severe punishment to act as a deterrent to the other employees. Accordingly, on 20.07.1998, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Clerk.

2(v) The petitioner’s appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner Mandi, H.P. on 06.06.2000. The second appeal preferred by him was