$~04 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2787/2012 Date of decision: 27th March, 2017 USHA RANI SOOD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.S. Pandey and Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocates.

versus INDIAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Gagan Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

Usha Rani Sood-the petitioner on death of her husband was appointed on compassionate grounds to the Group „D‟ post of Supporting Staff Grade-I on 15th March, 1997 in the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute.

2. By memorandum dated 1st May, 2006, enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as per Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the following articles of charge:-

“LIST OF PARAGRAPHS OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SMT. USHA RANI SOOD, S.S. GRADE-I, IASRI, NEW DELHI A complaint has been received that in year 2005, when Smt. Usha Rani Sood was posted as S.S. Grade-I in Indian Agricultral Statistics Research Institute, then she had taken Rs.1,00,000/- in a fraudulent manner from Sh. Rajender Kumar, Assistant (Storage Department) by giving him false assurance and her this behaviour is against the disciplines and office rules.

Therefore, from the abovesaid act of Smt. Sood, it is proved that she is having lack of truthfulness/honesty in her which is undignified/shameful for an employee of Institute/Council. Therefore, this act of her is a clear violation of Rule 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (iii) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which applies on an employee of Institute/Council. ”

3. The petitioner admitted the charge in writing before the Enquiry Officer on 27th July, 2006. In view of the admission, the inquiry officer did not proceed to record the statement of witnesses. He submitted his report holding that the petitioner as “guilty”. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from service dated 23rd August, 2006. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23rd September, 2006.

4. The order dated 23rd September, 2006 was challenged by the petitioner in OA No.2401/2006, which was partially allowed vide order dated 23rd May, 2007 with an order of remand to the Appellate Authority to reconsider and pass a speaking and reasoned order.

5. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 29th June, 2007. The petitioner thereupon filed a review petition, which was also rejected by the order dated 11th April, 2008.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had not understood what was put to her by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from Rajender Kumar (Assistant- Store), the complainant. The petitioner relies upon the receipt dated 28th June, 2006 executed by Rajender Kumar, affirming that he had been refunded Rs.9900/- and Rs.90,100/- was still due. Referring to the written note dated 27th April, 2006, it is submitted that the petitioner had admitted having taken Rs.1,00,000/- from Rajender Kumar, who used to work in the store. She had promised to refund the said amount in monthly instalments of Rs.1000/- each.

7. The petitioner, we notice, has admitted the allegations on three different occasions. The written note dated 27th April, 2006, states that the petitioner had taken Rs.1,00,000/- for securing a job for the complainant- Rajender Kumar‟s son. No doubt, there is a difference between what was accepted by the petitioner and what was recorded thereafter with the signatures of Kuldeep Kumar Hans, Vishal Lakhan Pal, Hayat Singh and Basant Kumar, but this would not be a cause or concern, for the said four officers along with the complainant-Rajender Kumar were cited as witnesses in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner thereafter on 27th July, 2006 before the Enquiry Officer had specially admitted the charges levelled against her. The said