CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 24-06-2024 Heard Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order No.3239 dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure-1)issued under the signature of respondent No.4 by which the penalty of censure has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner consequent upon quashing the order No.3239 dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure-1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was posted in Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred as SSB) petitioner was served a charge memo in respect of three charges vide letter no.1/FTRL/GE/10(84)/15667 dated 12.07.2011 under Section 43 of SSB Act 2007 concerning selling his car A star VXI Maruti bearing Registration No.BR-06R 8496 to SI Anurag Singh and purchasing TATA Indigo CS GLX bearing Registration No BR-06-V-0865. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of severe reprimand under section 58(1) (b) of S.S.B Act 2007 came to be issued over the signature of Inspector General, S.S.B in pursuance of charge memo dated 12.07.2011 vide order 27420 dated 12.12.2012 and order No.27504 dated 13.12.2012.

4. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 02.03.2012 containing five articles of charges ranging from 2007 to 2009 enclosing therewith imputation of misconduct, a list of document and list of witnesses asking the petitioner to submit written statement of defence within 10 days of the receipt of the memorandum while the petitioner was posted as Commandant, frontier head quarter, Sashastra Seema Bal, Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three charges out of five charges in which memo dated 02.03.2012 were same and similar in charge memo dated 12.07.2011 for which the petitioner was already awarded severe reprimand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the five articles of charge framed against the petitioner, which are reproduced hereinbelow:

“Article-1:- Shri K.C. Vikram, Commandant, SSB while posted at 19h Bn., SSB Bathnaha (Araria), committed a misconduct by not informing about sale of Alto (LX) car, Registration No. WB-74/F-8162 to Sh Jitendra Singh son of Late Paras Nath Singh, VPO Jaitpur, PS Baraihya, Distt. Lakhi Sarai for Rs. 1,70,000/- on 15.07.2007 and thereby violated Rule

18 (3) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.

Article-II:- Sh. KC Vikram, Commandant, SSB while a posted at 19" Bn., Bathnaha (Araria), during 2007 committed a misconduct by not informing about purchase of TATA Indica GLS (XETA) car, Registration No. WB-74 17791 for Rs. 3,25,000/ and thus violated Rule 18 (3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article- III:- Sh. K.C. Vikram, Commandant, 558 while a posted at 9 Bo. Sitamarhi, during November/ December 2008 committed a misconduct by not informing about sale of TATA Indica GIS (XETA) car Registration No WB-74 L-7791 for Rs.2,50,000/ only to Md. Rejjak Ali son of Md. Musaraf Hussain, R/o Boltala (Bahadur) to Kotwali, Jalpaiguri on 30.11.2008 and thereby violated Rule 18 (3) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.

Article-IV:- Sh. K.C. Vikram, Commandant, 558 while posted at 9 Bn. Sitamarhi, during February/ March 2009 committed a misconduct by not informing about purchase of A-STAR Vei car, Registration No. BR-06R-8496 for Rs 4,13,899/ only on 09.02.2009 and thus violated Rule 18 (3) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.

Article-V:- Sh. K.C. Vikram, Commandant, 55B while posted at 9 BN. Sitamarhi, during March 2009 committed a misconduct by not obtaining permission of the competent authority for taking loan amounting to Rs.4,25,000/- for payment of one time settlement in divorce to his wife and thus violated Rule 16 (4) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed written statement for defence on 23.03.