IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.02.2025 Anil Kumar Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Lt. Col. P.K. Saran (Retd.), Advocate and Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by respondent No.3 viz. Director General, National Security Guard, JAG Branch, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 26.11.2015 vide which a punishment of “Severe Reprimand” has been imposed upon the petitioner, has been dismissed alongwith challenge to the above order dated 26.11.2015 which had rendered petitioner ineligible for the next promotion.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner had got enrolled in the Army on 17.12.1987 in 4^th Battalion of the Rajput Regiment and retired therefrom as a Subedar on 31.12.2017 after putting in a service of 30 years and 14 days. He contends that the petitioner has an outstanding service record and he participated in numerous operations of counter insurgency as well as in peace keeping missions. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Senior JCO of the Bravo Squadron of 51 SAG wherein he noticed that on verbal instructions of respondent No.5 i.e. the Group Commander, 51 Special Action Group, National Security Guard, Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana), Corpus of an illegal fund (slush fund in Cash) for luxuries was being collected from the civilian employees working in the Unit by allowing them to dine in the Squadron’s Jawans’ Mess, thereby indirectly selling the surplus ration of the Jawans. There was no proper system of accounting, controlling or safe custody of the supplies or the fund.

3. On verbal directions of respondent No.5, the petitioner unwillingly took over the charge of slush fund, despite raising objections against the same on various occasions. It is contended that in the month of October-2015, the petitioner, after having a successful and unblemished completion of his deputation with 51 SAG, was in the process of repatriation to his parent Unit in Army i.e. 4 RAJPUT and was required to hand-over his charge to one Subedar (Assistant Commander Grade-I)-Bharat Singh. The slush fund to the tune of Rs.48,760/- was also to be handed over by the petitioner along with Squadron fund register and other condiment fund register. On 14.10.2015, the petitioner discovered that the Slush fund as well as both the fund registers were missing. He immediately reported the matter, through proper channel, to respondent No.5 at 10:15 AM.

4. The counsel argues that in the hours following the incident, a search party of three officers carried out a thorough independent search of the petitioner’s room but found nothing. Thereafter, the room of the petitioner was locked by the said officers and searched again after about six hours and this time, the search party traced both the registers, however no money was found. The following day, on 15^th Oct 2015, cash amounting to Rs. 43,000/- was found laying scattered in the washroom adjacent to the petitioner’s room.

5. The counsel submits that respondent No.5 ordered a summary of evidence for inflicting punishment upon the petitioner and did not take recourse of the proper Court of Inquiry, since the collection of slush fund in itself was an illegality being committed by him and any inquiry would’ve led to action against him as well. Accordingly, a punishment of ‘Severe Reprimand’, solely on the basis of the charge-sheet, served upon the petitioner and by recording that petitioner pleaded guilty, but without following the due procedure or constituting a Summary Security Guard Court. There were thus procedural lapses in the manner the proceedings were initiated and punishment imposed. The petitioner thus preferred an appeal against the said order and poin