Jeet Singh vs Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd. ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 29 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, by this petition, seeks quashing of the order of punishment imposed and prays for exoneration. Petitioner had joined the services of respondent as Junior Clerk on 3rd November, 1966. In due course, he was promoted to Senior Clerk and then to Superintendent (Clerical). At the relevant time during 1992-1993, petitioner was posted as Superintendent (NT) Stationery Store.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner was in the following terms:-

" Sh.Jeet Singh, E.No.7256, while working as Store Supdt.(NT) Stationary Store, RPH, during 1991-1992 with malafide intention with a view to extend undue benefit to supplier deliberately in connivance with store keeper Baldev Raj as well as with party, accepted and approved the inflated quantity of 1000m Nos. Note and correspondence sheet pads vide store receipt acknowledgment No. 169 dated 21.02.1992 prepared against Challan No. 139 dt. 21.02.1992 for 100 Nos. Note Sheet Pads supplied by M/s New India Press, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi against PO No. 56/S/TE-7/91-92/RP.I/90 dated 29.11.1991. Hence, Sh.Jeet Singh cleared the payment of inflated quantity of 1000 Nos. Note Sheet pads to the supplier, incurring heavy financial loss to the undertaking towards the cost of 900 note sheet pads short supplied."

3. The gravamen of the charge was that note sheet pads supplied were only 100 whereas supply of 1000 note sheet pads was recorded and paid for.

4. Memorandum dated 15th September, 1994 together with imputation of misconduct were duly issued to the petitioner. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to explain his version, but he did not give any reply. Regular inquiry was conducted affording due opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. The Inquiry Officer after appreciation of the evidence on record reached the conclusion that the petitioner had cleared payment of inflated quantity of 1000 note sheet pads to the supplier, incurring heavy financial loss to the undertaking towards the cost of 900 note sheet pads short supplied. The Inquiry Officer took note of the fact that before making delivery of the material in the store, entry of the material with necessary particulars, is entered in the Security Inward Register maintained by the Gate Keeper. Perusal of the security inward register showed that 100 nos note sheet pads had been brought in vide challan No. 139 dated 21.2.1992 for delivery. The entry of 100 number note sheet pads appeared at sr.no.1780 at page 28 of the Register. Store receipt acknowledgment No. 169 dated 21.2.1992 for the inflated supply of 1000 note sheet pads had been approved by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found that the entry in security inward register was also approved by the petitioner.

5. The plea taken by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer was that there was no corroborative evidence to claim that there was any short supply. It was urged that the alleged discrepancy was noticed after one and a half year and there could be no physical verification of the stock. The entry of 100 note sheet pads in the security inward register was done by the gate keeper in the routine course of his duty. Petitioner maintained that there was no short supply. The Inquiry Officer on appreciation of the entire evidence held that there was no doubt about the correctness and authenticity of the entry in the security Inward Register and its evidentiary value did not get diminished by the same not being countersigned by the Senior Officer. It is significant to notice that it was subsequently at a belated stage in the proceedings, seeking review and in the present proceedings that the petitioner has taken the position that he had approved the supply of 100 note books and not 1000 and tampering of the record had been done subsequently after he had been transferred from the said department. In other words, petitioner now seems to be accepting the factum of short supply, but claims that records had been tempered by others and he had approved the supply and payment for 100 note pads and a zero had been added subsequently.

6. In the event, the Inquiry Officer held that charge against the petitioner was substantiated. The Disciplinary Authority issued the memorandum dated 11th July, 1997, proposing the penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioner replied protesting against the same. The Competent Authority thereupon vide order dated 19th January, 1998 found no substance in the representation of the petitioner. Holding that charges were grave and serious, confirmed and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with a bar for future employment. Petitioner thereupon submitted an appeal for mercy. He urged that his case was mistakenly considered on the same basis as that of Store Keeper. He pleaded that there was no connivance with the store keeper. He further sought to place reliance on original challan No. 139 dated 21.2.1992, where the security staff had made an entry of 100 number of note sheet pads. Receipt stamp of the store keeper on the face of the challan also showed the receipt of 100 note sheet pads. This had been countersigned by the petitioner. It was therefore sought to be claimed that petitioner had only approved 100 note sheet pads and it was subsequently that zero had been added. Th Disciplinary Authority after taking note of the plea that tampering in quantity of material might have been done subsequent to the date of its acknowledgment and the fact that petitioner was also transferred soon after from the stores Department held that the collusive role does not appear to be conclusively established. The penalty of dismissal from service was therefore regarded as harsh. Penalty of reduction by three stages in his time scale, till the date of retirement with no increments being earned was therefore awarded vide order dated 15th July, 1998.

Vide another order dated 1st August, 1999, petitioner's representation that the period of his absence from duty i.e between his dismissal and reinstatement may be treated on duty was not accepted. The respondents taking a lenient view of the matter ordered to treat the period between his dismissal and reinstatement i.e 19.1.1998 to 25.7.1998 as "leave of the kind due". Petitioner sought review of the penalty imposed and the Board of respondents vide its order dated 17th August, 2001 further reduced penalty of reduction by three stages in his time scale of pay till the date of retirement to be without cumulative effect. It passed the following order:-

"The Board considered the Additional General Manager (A)'s letter No.VC-21-22/94/Preamble. AO Mtg.335 dt.31.5.2001 (Suptd.) Engineer, Vigilance, placed the records of the case before the Board), observed that lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner has clearly been there although it may not per se attach malafides of the petitioner with it and accordingly keeping the whole case and appeal in mind unanimously resolved to specify that the penalty of reduction by three stages in his time scale of pay till the date of retirement will be without cumulative effect."

7. From the foregoing narration of facts, it would be seen that penalty of dismissal from service as imposed was reduced to reduction by three stages in his time scale of pay with cumulative effect and was further reduced in review without cumulative effect.

8. Mr.Rishikesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that documents on record demonstrate how the quantity of note book pads was changed from 100 to 1000 note books pads. He submits that petitioner could not be made liable for actions and things which were done after his transfer from the said department. He submitted that Competent Authority had returned a finding that no case of collusion of the petitioner with store keeper was established. In this view, the penalty of stoppage of three increments was a harsh one. He submitted that the petitioner had a clean record all through. The incident which had happened in 1992-93 was inquired into in the year 1998, while the petitioner retired in 1999. He also feebly attempted to urge that the petitioner's function was to approve the quality of the material and not quantity. He submitted that the penalty imposed in review of stoppage of three increments, has other ramifications. The period during which the petitioner remained dismissed from service prior to his reinstatement has been treated by respondents as "leave of the kind due". This had resulted in loss of leave encashment to the petitioner. He claims that in the absence of any collusion, the petitioner could at best be accused of lack of supervision for which the penalty of reduction by three stages in his time scale was totally disproportionate and a harsh one. He urged that the petitioner deserves to be totally exonerated with payment of all consequential benefits to him. Relying on OM No. 43/56/64/AVD dated 22.10.1964 at page 247 of Swamy's Compilation of FRSR Part-1, General Rules, he submits that where proceedings had been initiated or enquiry held for imposition of major penalty, but finally only a minor penalty is imposed, the suspension should be considered unjustified and full pay and allowances be paid for the suspension period. Stoppage of three increments as imposed would be a minor penalty and the petitioner was entitled to be paid full benefits during the period of suspension. He submitted that the Competent Authority while converting the order of dismissal from service to reduction of three increments in his time scale with cumulative effect and subsequently without cumulative effect, was obliged to pass directions dealing with entitlement during these period but it had not done so.

9. Ms.Monika Arora Garg, learned counsel for respondents refuting the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel urged that respondents gave due credence to the role of the petitioner and after a careful consideration of all the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to reduction in three increments in his time scale with cumulative effect and thereafter without cumulative effect. The punishment awarded cannot by any standard be regarded as excessive, harsh or disproportionate.

10. I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. The office order dated 6th August, 1978 defines the duties of Superintendents (Store Maintenance). Leaving aside various misc., duties specified, it reads as under:-

"2. General supervision and administration of the stores with regard to receipt of material from the suppliers, issue and maintenance of the material during storage. They shall ensure that appropriate entries are made by the staff under them in the registers/ledgers maintained for the purpose within the shortest possible time. The responsibility for receipts, issue and proper account will however remain with the Store Keeper in respect of every store but the Supdt shall verify and sign the store transfer challans for having carried out 100% check and also in respect of receipt of material where the check should be up to 100%.

6. They should ensure that stock verification reports in respect of their stores are attended within 15 days after the receipt of such reports and put up to the appropriate authority for further necessary action with the explanation of the Store Keeper concerned.

8. Supdts should periodically contact A.C.A..(SC) and ensure that stock verification is conducted in respect of their stores periodically and appropriate action is taken on such reports.

9. They should ensure that all store ledgers, issue docket books and other important records including cardex system, bin cards etc are properly maintained and also that they are up to date."

11. It would be seen from the duties as extracted above that Superintendent (Stores) is required to verify and sign the store transfer challans for having carried out 100% check and also in respect of receipt of material where the check should be up to 100%. There is also an obligation that stock verification reports in respect of stores are attended within 15 days after the receipt of such reports. Obligation to carry out stock verification is also there. In the light of the foregoing duties, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not responsible for exercising supervision and control and ensuring verification of receipt of material. Moreover as noted in this case, petitioner had earlier taken a position that note pads received in fact were 1000 and there was no short supply before the Inquiry Officer. In fact evidence in defense produced by the petitioner was to this effect and it was urged that in the absence of stock verification, it could not be said that there was a short supply. It is only later on when the petitioner found that the same endorsement was in respect of 100 note book pads by him in the Security Inward Register that the present plea was taken.

12. Be that as it may, the factum of approval of receipt of 1000 note book pads and accordingly approval for its payment by the petitioner cannot be negated. I, therefore, find no merit in the submission that petitioner was entitled to exoneration and the penalty imposed was harsh or disproportionate. The respondents have treated the period from the date of dismissal to his reinstatement as "leave of the kind due".

13. Petitioner in the writ petition has sought to place reliance on OM No. 43/56/64/AVD dated 22.10.1964 at page 247 of Swamy's Compilation of FRSR Part-1, General Rules. This aspect had not been raised before the authorities although the learned counsel for respondents refutes this entitlement by claiming the memorandum not being applicable or binding on the respondents. Let the petitioner submit a representation in this regard within 15 days and the same would be disposed of by the authorities by a speaking order.

Save for the above direction, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.