Dr. Ram Avtar Sharma vs Maharaja Agrasen College
2009 Latest Caselaw 3552 Del

                   * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                       Date of Reserve: 22.7.2009
                                                               Date of Order: 4th September, 2009

OMP No. 267/2006
%                                                                                 04.09.2009

        Dr. Ram Avtar Sharma                   ... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate

                   Versus


        Maharaja Agrasen College                     ... Respondent
                       Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate
                       Mr. Munish Kumar & Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs.


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?                  Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                 Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                         Yes.

JUDGMENT

By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996 the petitioner has assailed an award dated 21st April, 2006 passed by an Appeal

Committee, constituted by the Vice President of India acting in his capacity as

Chancellor, Delhi University under Ordinance XII Clause 9(i) University Calendar. The

Appeal Committee consisted of three members.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the

petitioner was working as Principal of Maharaja Agrasen College, Delhi. The Governing

Body found various irregularities and misconducts having been done by the

Principal/Petitioner and he was given a charge-sheet of 23 charges. Inquiry was

initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry was assigned to a retired Judge of High

Court of Delhi. The Inquiry Report submitted by the retired Judge held that 22 out of 23

charges against the petitioner were not proved. 23rd charge had various sub-heads

consisting of 177 charges. The Presenting Officer of College pressed only 69 charges.

Of these 69 charges, the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that 28 charges were not proved

and of the remaining 41 charges, the Enquiry Officer found as under:

 17 charges were found proved to the extent that Open Tender Inquiry was essential to make those purchases referred to in these charges or to have the civil works executed, as referred to in these charges - but they were not advertised. In fact, with respect to Charge 3.5.4, it is noted that there was no open tender inquiry and also the limited quotations called were only a showpiece.

 9 cases were found proved to the extent that the purchases were made or civil works ordered, without calling for any quotation whatsoever.

 In 15 cases of purchases / orders for civil works quotations were called -

but not at all considered. Purchase was made or civil work was got done even before the quotations were opened for consideration. The Inquiry Authority observed that "Quotations were introduced as a showpiece or hoax as a cover up".

3. The Inquiry Officer proposed a penalty of removal/dismissal of the

petitioner from the service and the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner

assailed his removal from service by the Management Committee on the basis of Inquiry

Report. Under Ordinance XII of University Calendar an Appeal Committee was

constituted by the Chancellor. Before the Appeal Committee, the petitioner had taken

almost the same stand which the petitioner had taken before this Court for challenging

the award of the Appeal Committee. The Appeal Committee after considering various

contentions of the petitioner at length had come to the conclusion that the charges

against the petitioner in case of 41 sub heads were rightly held „proved‟ on the basis of

evidence and material before the Inquiry Officer and the punishment awarded was in

consonance with the conduct of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has assailed the award of the Appeal Committee on

following grounds:

i) The Inquiry was vitiated since it was not made clear to the petitioner as to under

which Rule/Ordinance enquiry was being conducted and action proposed

was to be taken. Thus, there was violation of rules of natural justice.

ii) The petitioner was not made clear whether CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules applied to

the petitioner or not.

iii) The charges framed against the petitioner were vague in nature and did not

contain necessary material particulars with the result that the petitioner did

not know what charges he had to meet.

iv) The case proved against the petitioner during Inquiry was of procedural

irregularities and not of illegalities therefore, major penalty of removal of

service was not desirable and only a minor penalty could have been given to

the petitioner.

v) The Inquiry Report as accepted by the Governing Body show that college had

not been put to any loss on account of purchases made under the charge-

sheet and there was no mala fide proved on the part of the petitioner. The

quality of material procured was not found to be inferior or excess of the

actual requirement. Thus, the acts of the petitioner were bona fide and in the

overall interest of the college. Removal of petitioner from the post of Principal

on the basis of Inquiry Report was unwarranted.

vi) Fact Finding Committee Report, a basis of initiating Inquiry, was not supplied to

the petitioner.

vii) It was the function of Purchase Committee to observe due procedure in the

purchases to be made for the college. The petitioner being Principal could

not be held solely responsible for the acts and deeds of the Purchase

Committee. It is the members of the Purchase Committee who should have

made their conduct clear rather than the petitioner.

viii) It was the Purchase Committee who was to issue "Urgency Certificate" and

not the Principal as is the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the

Appeal Committee.

ix) There was no charge framed against the petitioner of having committed financial

irregularity therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any

misconduct.

x) The Inquiry Report despite holding of 41 sub charges proved under Charge No.3,

against the petitioner, did not say that the petitioner had violated the

provisions of General Financial Rules.

xi) Charge No.3 as framed against the petitioner was very vague and silent as to

which rules, procedures and regulations prevalent in University of Delhi were

violated by the petitioner. There was no mention of General Financial Rules

in Charge No.3, the Inquiry Authority therefore could not return a finding

under sub-heads of Charge no.3 of 41 charges having been proved.

xii) There were many defects and anomalies in the Charges regarding amounts,

dates and parties and there was no co-relation between the charges and

documents supplied. The Inquiry was therefore vitiated for vagueness of

charges. The Appeal Committee ignored the fact that the charge-sheet was

defective. The Appeal Committee failed to consider the defects in the

charge-sheet and rather skirted the issue by placing the burden on petitioner

to show if such defects had led to any prejudice or wrong proving of charges.

xiii) The Appeal Committee ignored the fact that Ordinance XII of the University

Calendar was not applicable in case of the petitioner and Ordinance XVIII

was applicable in this case. Ordinance XVIII specifically provided that the

engagement of the Principal may be determined by the Governing Body for

„Misconduct‟ but shall not be determined except for „Good Cause‟. The

Governing Body ignored these two basic ingredients of Ordinance XVIII and

the Appeal Committee also ignored this. There was no adequate or proper

reason justifying removal of the petitioner from the post of Principal.

xiv) The Appeal Committee as well as Inquiry Officer acted contrary to Delhi

University Act 1922. Under Delhi University Act, it is the Vice Chancellor,

being the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and ex

officio Chairman of the Executive Council, the Academic Council and the

Finance Committee, who has a duty to see that Ordinance or Regulations

were duly observed and it is the Vice Chancellor who can take the actions

against the Principal. The petitioner was wrongly dealt under Ordinance XII.

The petitioner was required to be dealt under Ordinance XVIII which provided

- "colleges other than those maintained by Government of India", since

Maharaja Agrasen College was not maintained by Government of India, only

Ordinance XVIII would have been applicable and not Ordinance XII. No

power of suspension or termination vested in the Governing Body of College

under Ordinance XVIII.

xv) The Governing Body could appoint Principal subject to approval of Executive

Council under Ordinance XVIII thus, as a corollary, Principal could be

removed only with the approval of Executive Council and Governing Body

had no power to terminate the services of Principal on its own.

xvi) The Appeal Committee fell in grave error of mis-conducting itself and not

considering fundamental issue whether the provisions of General Financial

Rules had been adopted by University of Delhi or not.

xvii) Reliance on Circular No. F-DE-27(45)96-97/CB/Edn./1438-49 dated

06.06.1997 issued by Government of NCT of Delhi putting responsibilities on

the college Principal of strictly observing codal formalities, abiding of

provisions of the General Financial Rules as the term and condition of the

grant and the direction/advice of the Delhi Government regarding utilizing the

grant was wrongly relied upon by the Appeal Committee to the prejudice of

the petitioner resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner. There was no legal

sanction of such a circular. Since, it was not held that the petitioner had

acted for personal gains or caused financial loss to the institution, non-

observance of Financial Rules cannot be construed as a misconduct.

xviii) The contravention of the provisions of General Financial Rules could not be

the basis of holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The General

Financial Rules were never treated as part of service conditions of petitioner,

any infraction of provisions of General Financial Rules cannot attract

misconduct. Delhi University was an autonomous institution and no rules of

Government of India were applicable to Delhi University and its affiliated

college. General Financial Rules could not be imposed on Maharaj Agrasen

College Society. Tthe College had its own purchase procedure which was

duly accepted by the Governing Body.

xix) The Appeal Committee acted in a hyper technical and legalistic manner. Since

no loss to the college or mis-utilization of funds was proved against the

petition the irregularities in following procedure could not be construed as

misconduct. Moreover, the petitioner was only one of the signatories to the

issuance of cheques the other signatories were Bursar of the College.

xx) There was no specific evidence about undue influence on record as was

observed by Inquiry Authority. The Principal could not be held responsible for

Open Tender Inquiry and it was the responsibility of Section Officer

(Accounts), the technical error, if any, was due to negligence of SO

(Accounts) and Bursar. The petitioner could not be held responsible for the

same. The Appeal Committee ignored this fact and also ignored that SO

(Accounts), who was the custodian of record and had tampered with the

records by putting false and imaginary dates to save his own skin.

xxi) The Appeal Committee could not have ignored the fact that Principal had to be

guided by SO (Accounts) and Bursar and the petitioner could not be

penalized by passing on buck to him for acts/omissions of SO

(Accounts)/Bursar.

xxii) The Enquiry Committee went wrong in observing that there had been

repeated and persistent deviations and omissions in complying with the rules.

The Inquiry Committee took totally disproportionate view of the punishment

imposed on the petitioner by holding the removal of the petitioner.

xxiii) The Vice Chancellor accorded his approval to the removal of the petitioner as

Principal without defining the misconduct which was the central issue. There

was non application of mind by the Vice Chancellor, who misconstrued

infraction of procedural rules as misconduct without defining as to what

constitutes misconduct.

xxiv) The award was vitiated being against the Public Policy of India and the law of

service juris prudence as applicable in India.

5. In order to consider the various grounds taken by the petitioner for

challenging the award of the Appeal Committee it would be necessary to see what

charges were proved against the petitioner in Inquiry. In brief, the various sub-heads of

the charges and the holding of the Inquiry Committee are as under:

Charge No.3.3.3

This charge was regarding construction of class room by M/s Bhardwaj and Associates on a price of Rs.1,18,108/-. The accusation against the petitioner was that no quotations were called for, Building Committee was not involved in ordering this work to the firm and there was no approval of the Governing Body of the College.

The Inquiry Committee held that the said charge was proved against the petitioner as the requirement for calling up for tender/quotations even by way of limited inquiry was not called for by the petitioner.

Charge No.3.3.7 This charge pertains to electrical work carried out by M/s Bhardwaj and Associates for Rs.16,335/-. The charge was that no quotations were invited for this work, the Purchase Committee was also not involved and the work was got done without the approval of the Governing Body. Also the Contractor had no experience nor was the verification of the work done. This charge was also established as quotation should have been invited and the same should have been routed through the Purchase Committee. There was an infraction of financial procedure of purchase.

Charge No.3.4.1 This charge related to work of wall blackboards. Accusation in the charge was that no quotations were obtained nor any recommendation from the Building Committee was obtained and work was awarded without the approval of the Governing Body and the verification of the work was not done.

It was found that there was infraction of procedure prescribed by the Financial Rules in not calling the quotations at all. The said charge was proved to the said limited extent.

Charge No.3.4.2 This charge pertained to civil work done by M/s Bhardwaj and Associates. The accusation was that two out of three quotations were not genuine, no verification was made, Building Committee was not involved in recommendation of the work and also the work was got done without approval of the Governing Body. The accusation related to not inviting an „Open Tender‟.

It was held that there was violation of financial procedure in not obtaining quotations. The responsibility of the petitioner being the Head of the Institution was to enforce and follow the financial procedures, which was not done and there had been a lapse.

Charge No.3.4.4 This charge pertained to repairs in the College. Allegations are that two out of three quotations received were not genuine and Building Committee was not consulted. It was found that bills were of earlier date than the recommendation of the name of the Contractor and opening of quotations. This clearly showed that procedure for considering quotation was not followed and the petitioner was responsible for infraction of procedure.

Charge No.3.4.5 This charge pertained to purchase of computers. Accusation is that the Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine. It was held that procedural irregularity was committed in the purchase and the petitioner was under a duty to have known that quotations were not given any consideration and the supply order was given without following the purchase procedure.

Charge No.3.4.10 This charge related to construction work in the College. Accusation is that the Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine. It was held that the work was done without quotations and the payments were clubbed with other bills. Non-calling of quotations was a violation of prescribed procedure in the General Financial Rules. This charge was established to this extent.

Charge No. 3.4.15 This Charge pertained to purchase of books from Printmen. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine. It was established that there was clear infraction of prescribed financial procedure in purchasing books. Responsibility of the petitioner was to see that the quotations were considered prior to ordering supply.

Charge No.3.5.1 The charge related to purchase of computers and other parts from M/s COMCAT. Accusation was that no quotations were called, purchase was not routed through the Purchase Committee. It was held that the petitioner sanctioned the bills without recommendation by Bursar. The responsibility of the petitioner for violation of GFR about these purchases was established.

Charge No.3.5.3 This Charge was regarding purchase of Oscilloscope etc. Accusation was that no open tender inquiry was invited as required and the tenders were not considered by the Purchase Committee. It was held that the urgency as pleaded by the petitioner could not be justified as no certificate was recorded about the said urgency and in the absence of the

same, open tender inquiry was imperative. The violation of procedure was established.

Charge No.3.5.4 This charge was regarding purchase of tables and chairs. Accusation was that no open tender inquiry system was followed, two out of three quotations were not genuine and the purchases were not made through the Purchase Committee. It was held that open tender inquiry was required to be issued but was not issued. There was violation of procedure and the petitioner was responsible for the same.

Charge No.3.6.2 This charge was regarding purchase of computer stationery. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine. Charge was established to a limited extent that the Purchase Committee was not involved in the purchaser before the purchase was made.

Charge No.3.7.1 The charge was regarding printing of hard bound register from ABC Enterprises. Accusation was that two out of three quotations were not genuine. It was held that quotations were obtained after the goods were supplied only to make up the default as fake quotations. The charge was held proved.

Charge No.3.8.7 It pertained to purchase of book cases. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval from the Governing Body. It was found that purchases were made without consideration of quotations and recommendation of the Purchase Committee and there was violation of procedure of General Financial Rules.

Charge No.3.8.15 This charge pertained to purchase of water coolers. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine. The Appeal Committee noted that invoice for supply of water cooler as well as cheque of payment was bearing dates prior to the date of quotations. The quotations were thus considered a cover up.

Charge No.3.9.5 This charge pertained to purchase of tables and chairs. Accusation was that the Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and quotations were not even opened prior to placing of orders and no open tender inquiry system was followed and no approval from the Governing Body was taken. The charge was proved to the limited extent that the purchase was made through „Limited Tender

Inquiry‟ whereas it should have been made on the basis of Open Tender Inquiry.

Charge No.3.10.2 This charge pertained to purchase of steel almirahs. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body. It was held that calling of quotations were meaningless as the purchase was made without looking into the quotations at all.

Charge No.3.10.3 This charge pertained to purchase of lab instruments. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and also that no open tender inquiry was called, though mandatory. It was held that the purchases were made for more than Rs.50,000/- and an open tender inquiry must have been made, however, only a limited tender inquiry was made. There was violation of GFR to this extent. The petitioner was held responsible for infraction of GFR.

Charge No.3.10.4 This charge pertained to purchase of laboratory table. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. The charge was proved to the extent that the no open tender inquiry was followed and the purchases were made without consideration of even limited quotations by Purchase Committee or anybody.

Charge No.3.10.7 This charge pertained to purchase of chairs. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. It was held that open tender inquiry was imperative. This was not advertised as required under the GFR. There was a clear violation of GFR to this extent.

Charge No.3.10.9 This charge pertained to purchase of resistance boxes and laboratory equipments. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and no quotations were called for and there was no approval of the Governing Body. This charge was established to the extent that the procedure laid down in the GFR was not followed in the purchase and the petitioner had committed lapses in this respect.

Charge No.3.10.10

This charge pertained to purchase of Cathode Ray Oscilloscopes. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no open tender inquiry. It was held that there was violation of procedure and open tender inquiry must have been called for. The Petitioner was responsible to see that the purchases were as per GFR and was held responsible for the lapses.

Charge No.3.11.3 This charge pertained to purchase of printer. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and no quotations were invited. The charge was established to the extent that no quotations were called for the purchases and there was violation of procedure laid down in the GFR.

Charge No.3.11.5 This charge pertained to purchase of Generator. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. The letter ordering the supply and bill and the payment are of the same date. It was held that open tender inquiry should have been floated and there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner.

Charge No.3.11.6 This charge pertained to purchase of micro processor kit. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body. It was held that since the purchase of articles was of more than Rs.50,000/-, an open tender inquiry should have been invited, which was not done and there was violation of GFR.

Charge No.3.11.11 This charge pertained to purchase of round table for Conference Room. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. It was held that open tender inquiry should have been made which was not done. The petitioner was held responsible.

Charge No.3.11.13 This charge pertained to purchase of air conditioner. Accusation is that Purchase Committee was not involved and three out of four quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. The petitioner pleaded urgency. However, no certificate of urgency was there nor placed on record. The purchases being of more than Rs.50,000/-, open tender inquiry was must,

which was not done. The petitioner was held responsible for violation of GFR.

Charge No. 3.12.4 This charge pertained to printing of office stationery. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. Standard purchase procedure was violated and none of the quotations were proved to be genuine.

Charge No.3.12.5 This charge pertained to purchase of steel racks. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine. There was a violation of purchase procedure of GFR. There was no prior recommendation of the Purchase Committee. The petitioner was found to be in violation of GFR to this extent.

Charge No.3.16.1 This charge pertained to expenditure done from the development fund during the year 1996-97 for miscellaneous works got done through M/s Bhardwaj and Associates. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and there was no quotation called. There was a violation of purchase procedure of GFR. There was a need for quotation/tender being called for by limited tender inquiry however, the same was not followed.

Charge No.3.18.2 This charge pertained to purchase of various items from M/s Sanjay Diesels. It was held that the procedure of purchase after proper consideration and comparison of quotations by the Purchase Committee and by the Principal was not even followed. There was no approval from the Purchase Committee.

Charge No.3.18.5 This charge pertained to fixing of false ceiling. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body. The contract was given without any reference to the quotations. It was held that there was violation of the GFR by the petitioner.

Charge No.3.18.6 This charge pertained to miscellaneous work carried out by M/s Bhardwaj Servicing. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. It was held that there was violation of the GFR by the petitioner as there

was no open tender inquiry made, even though the purchase was more than Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner was held responsible to this extent.

Charge No.3.18.7 This charge pertained to purchase of server for computers and printer. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no open tender inquiry. It was held that there was violation of the GFR by the petitioner as there was no open tender inquiry made, even though the purchase was of more than Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner who had pleaded urgency for not floating open tender inquiry did not place or recorded any certificate or urgency and was held responsible for violation.

Charges No. 3.19.2 & 3.19.5 These charges pertained to gardening and development work. Accusation was that there was no recommendation by the Gardening Committee/Purchase Committee and no quotations were obtained and open tender inquiry was not called for. It was held as a violation of GFR by the petitioner by not inviting quotations or tenders when an open tender inquiry was essential.

Charge no.3.19.6 This charge pertained to purchase of computer and its parts. Accusation was that Purchase Committee was not involved and two out of three quotations were not genuine and there was no approval of the Governing Body and there was no open tender inquiry. It was held that there was a violation of the GFR by the petitioner as there was no open tender inquiry made, even though the purchase was of more than Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner was held responsible to this extent.

Charge No.3.20.1 This charge pertained to construction of two rooms and toilet at the new site of college. Accusation was that there was no date of opening of quotations nor any order was placed and there was no approval of the Governing body and also Government of NCT of Delhi and two out of three quotations were not genuine. Also the payment was made in excess of the quotations. It was held that the open tender inquiry was necessary as the work was of more than Rs.2,00,000/- and there was an infraction of financial procedure of civil work.

6. The Appeal Committee/Tribunal as constituted by the Vice President of

India after considering the arguments of the petitioner and the entire material came to

the following conclusions

a) That non-supply of Fact Finding Committee Report was not material in this case

since all the ELFA reports forming the basis of the Fact Finding Committee

Report had been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was not able to

show that the Fact Finding Report was relied upon in proving any of the

charges - considered proved. The charges (as proved) had been proved on

the basis of other documentation and admissions and not on the basis of Fact

Finding Committee Report. Thus, the non supply of Fact Finding Committee

Report did not vitiate the Enquiry.

b) The petitioner, being a College Appointed Teacher was governed by Ordinance

XII. Ordinance XII deals with College Appointed Teachers and it provides

that the teacher includes a Principal of college. Clause 3 of Ordinance XII

refers to retirement age of a person appointed permanently as a Principal of

the College. Clause 6 refers both to a „Principal‟ or a „Teacher‟ placed under

suspension and Clause 9 refers to Arbitration of an Appeal Committee in

respect of dispute in connection with termination of services of College

Appointed Teachers (including Principal). The Appeal Committee before

whom the petitioner had the appeal was itself constituted under Clause 9 of

Ordinance XII. There was considerable overlapping between the provisions

of Ordinances XII and XVIII. The Appeal Committee came to the conclusion

that the real issue was not applicability of Ordinance XII or Ordinance XVIII

but whether the penalty imposed on the appellant (petitioner herein) was

excessive and whether there were options available to the Governing Body to

consider imposition of other penalties. It held that Ordinance XII was very

much applicable to the petitioner since Ordinance XII was applicable in

respect of College Appointed Teacher including a Principal and the petitioner

was one such Principal.

c) Regarding applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules the Appeal Committee observed that

the rules were only an enunciation of principles of natural justice as

applicable to domestic inquiries and as long as the procedure followed in

inquiry could be considered to be broadly in line with these rules there was no

ground to come to the conclusion that due opportunity had been denied to the

Petitioner.

d) Regarding vagueness and defective charges, the Appeal Committee came to the

conclusion that the alleged defects and vagueness was misconceived and

not there. All charges proved against the petitioner were very clear. The

Appeal Committee observed that there was not only a violation of General

Financial Rules on the occasions proved in Charges but in case of petitioner

habitual violation of financial procedures over many years had been

established and the same could not be ignored. There could not be a

situation for emergent purchases and placing of work orders throughout the

life of the college. Not a single open tender was invited despite there being

no certificate of urgency issued by the petitioner, who was Principal of the

College authorized to issue such certificate under the rules. Delhi

Government vide circular no F-DE-27(45)/96-97/CB/Edn./1438-49 dated

6.6.1997 issued by the Directorate of Higher Education College Branch

Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi had informed the Principals

including petitioner that the General Financial Rules had to be observed.

This was during the tenure of the petitioner. Habitual violation of the financial

procedures involving public funds itself constituted misconduct, even if the

charge-sheet did not specifically use the word "misconduct". The Governing

Body had no power to amend the purchase procedure as prescribed by Delhi

Government since Delhi Government was the fund provider. A copy of the

circular of Delhi Government regarding compliance of financial rules was

specifically endorsed to the petitioner. The applicability of these rules would

have been obvious to the petitioner. The Circular specifically provided that

the Principal of the College would be responsible for strict compliance of all

codal formalities, the provisions of General Financial Rules, the terms and

conditions of the grant and the directions/advice of Delhi Government while

utilizing the grant. Principals were supposed to utilize the grant only for the

specified and approved expenditure and were to be personally liable for any

deviation. The college, in question, was 100% Delhi Government

aided/sponsored college at the time when petitioner was the Principal. The

petitioner was therefore bound by this circular which was a public document.

There was no doubt about the applicability of General Financial Rules to the

financial transactions by the college functionaries. Deviations from the open

tender procedure could be made only by following the provisions laid down in

the General Financial Rules relating to recording of certificate of urgency.

Such certificate could not be challenged unless there was a proof of mala

fide. However, in this case there was no issuance of certificate of urgency by

the petitioner at any stage for any of the purchases and despite that all codal

formalities as required under the General Financial Rules in respect of the 41

heads of charges were thrown to winds.

e) The Appeal Committee observed that the Enquiry was not instituted to test the

financial loss or the quantum of loss to the college. Charges were made in

respect of serious lapses in purchase procedure and these had been

established both on the basis of documentary proof as well on the basis of

admission of the appellant (petitioner herein). The Appeal Committee noted

that the Inquiry Authority had considered the charge in respect of 15 sub

heads (proved) wherein the "purchases were made or civil works were got

done" without considering the quotations called. In all these cases,

purchases were made or the civil work was got done even before the

quotations were opened for consideration. The Appeal Committee went

through the material considered by Inquiry Authority and observed that the

conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Authority that the quotations had been

introduced as showpiece or a „hoax‟ to cover up the irregularities was „just

and right‟. The appellant/petitioner, who was Principal, could give no

explanation or cogent reason to the Inquiry Authority for not putting date

below his signatures on the bills approved by him or on any of the purchase

documents. The Appeal Committee considered that this was a grave

situation conclusion regarding non-genuineness of the quotations arrived at

by the Inquiry Authority were in order. The aspect of non-observance of

codal formalities and procedure was re-examined by the Appeal Committee

in respect of all proved charges - the Appeal Committee noted that there was

an element of admission on the part of petitioner with respect to awarding 05

out of 06 contracts to M/s Bhardwaj Associates without involving even the

Building Committee in the building works and the charges against the

petitioner were duly proved on the basis of admission and other documents.

f) The Appeal Committee considered the arguments of petitioner that he alone

should not be held responsible and observed that the appellant could not

evade his responsibility regarding the involvement in the violations by

pointing out that his subordinates were also involved in the decisions to

deviate from the normal purchase procedure without certifying the urgency as

laid down in the Rules. The General Financial Rules were mandatory and the

manner the purchases were made by the petitioner was unprecedented. No

purchase procedure could allow placing orders even before quotations having

been received. In this case, the petitioner had placed orders and goods

were purchased even before the quotations were received. The Committee

noted that since the college was dependent on grants in aid received from

Government and the specific circular from Delhi Government made clear the

manner in which the grants were to be utilized and that no authority in the

college would be authorized or have power to device its own procedure other

than one laid down in General Financial Rules. The Committee observed

that the petitioner had not been able to justify repeated and persistent

deviations and omissions in complying with the Rules and codal formalities

for purchases wherein the purchases were made by the petitioner as

Principal of the college without even quotations having been called.

g) The Appeal Committee considered the specific instances of defective/vague

charges as pointed out by the petitioner and found that in one case the date

given in charge-sheet mentioned was 15th November, 1996 whereas the

documents showed the date as 6th November, 1996. The Committee found

that Inquiry Committee had acknowledged the correct date as 6th November,

1996 and this mistake in the charge-sheet was not material since the

documents supplied to the petitioner contained the correct date. In another

case the charge showed an amount of Rs.3472/- as paid whereas the actual

amount paid was Rs.34720/- . The inquiry record was perused and found

that the mistake was merely a typographical mistake and did not prejudice

the petitioner. Even otherwise, the documents and the cheques by which

payments were made bore the date and amount. However, it was found that

in this case the charge proved was that invoice of supply of water coolers as

well as the cheques for payment bore the date prior to the date of issue of

quotations and the Inquiry Authority found that the quotations were put as a

cover-up and in fact the order had been placed before the quotations were

even called. The Appeal Committee noted that the alleged defects had no

effect on the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Authority nor the error in

the value had effect of exaggerating the seriousness of the violation.

Similarly, in respect of other defects pointed out by the petitioner the Appeal

Committee came to the conclusion that the defects pointed out were

superficial and did not affect the result of the inquiry. In one case, the bill

amount was Rs.32450/- whereas in the charge-sheet it was shown as

Rs.1,32,450/-. The Inquiry Authority itself had noticed and alluded to this

mistake and considered the charge in correct perspective only. In fact, the

charges against the petitioner were not in respect of amounts but were in

respect of the deviations from the General Financial Rules of making

purchases without calling quotations and without opening tender/quotations

or without involvement of Purchase Committee. The Appeal Committee

therefore concluded that the defense of petitioner regarding defects in

Charges was false and the petitioner was not prejudiced in any way by the

so-called defects in the charges.

h) Regarding argument of the petitioner about applicability of the University

Ordinance or relevant Rules of the Government, the Appeal Committee

observed that wherever a University Ordinances or Rules are silent,

Government Rules and Instructions would be applicable in spirit both in

regard to the General Financial Rules, as also the CCS (CCA) Rules with

regard to different types of penalties that could be imposed. Ordinance XII

merely laid down the safeguards to prevent arbitrary determination of the

engagement of a teacher or Principal. The Ordinance nowhere provided that

other penalties could not be imposed for valid reasons.

i) Regarding validity of the Inquiry Report and evidence, the Appeal Committee

came to the conclusion that the Inquiry Authority had discounted the evidence

of the witnesses, except to the extent of documents proved and had almost

wholly relied on documentary evidence, with regard to proved charges and

had only relied on the evidence of the witnesses when it was fully

corroborated by documentary evidence. The Appeal Committee discussed

some of the Charges as examples. Charge No. 3.9.5 related to purchase of

tables and chairs costing over Rs.2 lac where the main allegation was that

three out of four quotations were not genuine. The bill of the goods as found

on record was dated 20th October, 1995, whereas quotations were opened

later on 8th November 1995 i.e. after the goods had already been purchased.

There was no approval of Purchase Committee or Governing Body and

mandatory open tender procedure was not followed. This charge was held

proved by the Inquiry Authority and Appeal Committee concluded that there

was nothing arbitrary about the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Authority.

In case of Charge no. 3.11.5, the charge related to purchase of a generator

set for Rs. 2 lac from M/s Sanjay Diesels, the main allegation was were that

two out of three quotations were not genuine and no open tender procedure

was followed, no Purchase Committee‟s approval was taken. The Inquiry

report showed that the bill for these goods was dated 31st March,1998 and

was sanctioned on the same day and the goods were received in the stock

on the same day and the quotations from the supplier were dated 27th March,

1998. The Inquiry Authority concluded that the purchases had been made

without inviting quotations. The open tender enquiry was required in this

case under the rules, since the purchase was of the value above Rs.50,000/-

and the charge against the petitioner stood proved to the extent of this

infringement of rules and making purchases without complying with codal

formalities. The Appeal Committee also found that there was no "certificate

of urgency" issued by the Principal. Irrespective of involvement of Purchase

Committee, the responsibility of lapses could not be shifted from Head of the

institution i.e. Principal unless it was apparent on the face of the record of the

proceedings that he had been misled, there was no such record available. In

case of Charge No. 3.11.6, the charge related to purchase of micro processor

kit for Rs.98,872/-, the payment was made on 31stMarch,1998, two out of

three quotations were found not genuine, no Purchase Committee was

involved, no open tender procedure was followed, there was no approval of

the Governing Body. The Inquiry Authority had concluded that the codal

formalities as required under General Financial Rules for purchase of above

Rs.50,000/- were not followed . The plea of the petitioner that these

formalities could not be resorted to since funds had to be utilized before 31st

March, 1998 was found untenable. Similarly in case of charge no. 3.11.13

purchase of air conditioners was made from M/s Snow Cool Air Conditioning

Company for Rs.1,09,664/-. The Inquiry Authority had come to the

conclusion that open tender procedure was not followed and only limited

tender enquiry was made. There was no "certificate of urgency" for deviating

from the requirement of open tender enquiry and the Principal could not be

absolved of his responsibility. The Appeal Committee similarly discussed

other charges which for the sake of brevity, are not being discussed here and

the Appeal Committee found all charges considered proved by the Inquiry

Authority to have been rightly established and it concurred with the report of

Inquiry Authority. The Appeal Committee found that the Inquiry Authority had

evaluated the evidence meticulously and had given fair and just conclusion.

The appellant/petitioner had not put date below his signatures on purchase

orders and put the blame on his subordinates. The onus of proving

tampering of records maintained in the official course of business was on the

petitioner since he made these allegations. The Appeal Committee found

that he was not able to provide any cogent evidence in support of alleged

tampering. The Appeal Committee found nothing wrong in the conclusions of

the Inquiry Authority and observed as under:

a. The inquiry was conducted in a scrupulously fair manner, the evidence has been evaluated with greater care and wherever possible, benefit of doubt has been given to the Charged Officer.

b. The defects in the charge sheet were taken note of by the Inquiry Authority and they did not affect the defence of the Appellant adversely with respect to the extent to which the charges were considered proved.

c. There are no contradictions in the Inquiry Report, which would warrant a different set of conclusions regarding the proving of the charges. The Charges held proved were rightly held proved.

7. The Appeal Committee upheld removal of the petitioner from the position

of Principal of College.

8. The petitioner has argued that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner

did not specify under which Rules the inquiry was conducted, the petitioner was being

governed only by the Service Contract and Delhi University Rules the applicability of

General Financial Rules was not part of his service conditions and holding him guilty of

violation of General Financial Rules would not amount to misconduct. The petitioner

relied upon Rajeshwar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 1990(1) Services Law Reporter 24

wherein this Court had held that the holding of inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965

against the appellant, who was governed by CISF Rules was violative of principles of

natural justice and finding based on such inquiry and punishment imposed was illegal.

9. I consider that this judgment is of no help to the petitioner. The

petitioner/appellant in Rajeshwar Singh case was a member of Central Industry Security

Force (CISF) and was governed by CISF Rules. The inquiry was held under CCS(CCA)

Rules and the Court had held that prejudice had already been occasioned to the

petitioner by serving charge-sheet and holding an inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules.

10. It is settled law that mere wrong nomenclature of the Rules or the Act

would not vitiate an order or an inquiry. What is to be seen is - whether the wrong

nomenclature of the Act or the Rules caused any prejudice to the person concerned. In

the present case, the inquiry against the petitioner was not held in respect of violation of

CCS(CCA) Rules rather CCS(CCA) Rules procedure was followed to ensure that a fair

inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The inquiry was in fact conducted against

the petitioner for violation of codal formalities and not following the General Financial

Rules in purchases made for the College over the years. The petitioner being the

Principal was considered responsible for following the procedure for making the

purchases as laid down under the relevant Rules and this violation was sought to be

proved before the Inquiry Authority on the basis of documents and evidence. Mere

stating of CCS(CCA) Rules under no circumstances could have prejudiced the

petitioner, who was only to show that he acted in accordance with the Rules.

11. The contention of petitioner that General Financial Rules were not part of

the service conditions of the petitioner and the petitioner was governed only by his

service contract is again a fallacious argument. The service contract of the petitioner did

not enunciate that while performing his different duties as Principal, no Rules shall be

followed. Any employee/Executive Officer/Principal or Administrative Officer appointed

at a post, apart from being governed by his service contract, is also bound to follow the

rules and regulations of the business which he is supposed to conduct. If a Principal is

head of the college, he is bound by the different rules and regulations meant for

administration of the college. These rules and regulations can be different for different

nature of job. If he is involved in purchases, he is bound by the rules and regulations of

General Financial Rules and codal formalities as enunciated by the Delhi Government

for purchase of the material. He cannot take a plea that since these General Financial

Rules were not part of his service contract he was not bound by the General Financial

Rules. If this argument is allowed to prevail perhaps no employee can be booked for

misconduct or violation of rules because the appointment letters which are issued to the

employees only provide his service conditions specific to the job. The appointment

letters do not give the rules applicable in respect of each administrative responsibility

which a person has to discharge. A person may then even take a plea that in his service

conditions it is not written that he would be bound by Indian Penal Code (IPC) or other

penal laws and may say that he was at liberty to be corrupt and tyrannical and was at

liberty to inflict injuries on students because it was not part of his service conditions that

he was bound by IPC. I, therefore, consider that this argument that he was not bound by

the General Financial Rules or he was not bound to observe codal formalities for making

purchases or that Delhi Government had no authority to prescribe that the grant given by

Delhi Government shall be used in accordance with General Financial Rules is a

fallacious argument and has to be turned down.

12. The petitioner relied upon Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1986

SC 995 to press the argument that charges framed against him were vague and it was

difficult to meet the charges fairly and therefore the inquiry based on these charges

stood vitiated. He also relied on Government of A.P and Ors. v. A. Venkata Raidu

2007(1) SCC 338 wherein Supreme Court observed as under:

9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge I. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said GOs or directions of the Government were not even placed before the enquiry officer. Hence, Charge I was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged.

13. This judgment is no help to the petitioner. The Appeal Committee had

examined each and every charge about which the petitioner made contention that the

charge was vague. In this order in preceding paras, the conclusions arrived at by the

Appeal Committee on his contention have been reproduced giving the nature of

vagueness urged by the petitioner. It is apparent that the petitioner is raising this plea

unnecessarily. The petitioner has failed to address the issue how he had been

prejudiced because of typographical error in the date or in the amount mentioned in the

charge-sheet when the documents supplied to him contained the correct date and

correct amount and more so when the charge was not in respect of misappropriation of

any amount but the charge was that the purchases were made by him without inviting

open tenders and even opening the limited tenders at all or without inviting even the

limited tender or that he subsequently manipulated the tenders. The charge-sheet

against the petitioner in respect of the allegations regarding non-compliance of the codal

formalities and non-compliance of the General Financial Rules were more specific. The

conclusion arrived at by the Appeal Committee is based on sound footings and cannot

be considered to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

14. The petitioner has argued that misconduct for which he was removed

from the service has not been defined either by the Appeal Committee or by the Inquiry

Authority. He submitted that the misconduct has to be construed in accordance with the

Rules. The Appeal Committee had not defined the „misconduct‟ and has not ruled as to

whether the conduct of the petitioner fitted in that definition of „misconduct‟. The

petitioner relied on State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh, Ex. Constable AIR 1992 SC

2188 wherein the Supreme Court had observed as under:

4. Misconduct has been defined in Black‟s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus:-

"A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms or misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness."

Misconduct in office has been defined as:

"Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act."

P.Ramanatha Aiyar‟s the Lax Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987 at p. 821 „misconduct‟ defines thus:-

"The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing

as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the content wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskillfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined an unlawful behavior or neglect by a public officer, by which the rights of a party have been affected."

5. Thus it could be seen that the word „misconduct‟ though not capable of precise definition, its reflection receive its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behavior; unlawful behavior, willful in character; forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.

15. It is apparent from this judgment of Supreme Court that the term

„misconduct‟ embraces Acts which the office holder had no authority to perform or the

act are performed improperly or the Officer fails to act in the face of an affirmative duty to

act in accordance with rules. In the present case, the petitioner was Principal of the

College. The circular of Delhi Government made it a personal responsibility of the

Principal of College to see that the grant given by the Government was spent in

accordance with provisions of General Financial Rules. Presuming that there was no

General Financial Rules and the Principal of College had to make purchases according

to a procedure which would be fair and equitable, does that give a right to the Principal

of the College to make all purchases without calling any quotation from anyone arbitrarily

at his own discretion? Even if no procedure is prescribed by General Financial Rules,

any sane person, at the helm of affairs for purchases, if had concern for the fairness

would call for fairly good number of quotations to ensure that he was getting purchases

for the college at a competitive price. The method of calling quotation is followed so that

a record is maintained as to what was the price quoted by different dealers and at what

price the goods have been purchased. The petitioner in this case throughout his career

as Principal of this College did not follow the procedure for purchases. In some cases

he purchased the goods first and the quotations were opened later on, in some cases,

no quotations at all were called and in some cases in order to camouflage that

quotations were being called the goods were purchased, the bills were paid, entries of

goods were made in Stock Register and thereafter to show that quotations had been

called. The quotations were opened. The Principal had been wise enough not to put

date under his signatures. If the petitioner was such an upright person and so caring as

he claims to be, for the College and for the students, one would fail to understand why

he did not put date under his signatures on all documents relating to purchases. It

cannot be said that the Principal was not aware that putting date under signature was a

material factor. It only shows that the Principal was not putting date under his signatures

deliberately as he knew that what was being done by him and by the persons under him,

was not in accordance with Rules and keeping the things vague (by not putting date

under signatures) may help him otherwise. One fails to understand why he was doing

so. Why the goods had been purchased and bills paid even before the quotations had

been called. All this has not been explained by the petitioner at all, either before the

Appeal Committee or before this Court or before the Inquiry Authority. The petitioner

has been only arguing that he acted in the best interest of the College. One fails to

understand how the best interest of College could be served by not calling quotations

from the various dealers before making purchases, how the best interest was served by

not utilizing the budget throughout the year and making the purchases only within the

last week of the financial year without following any formality and how the best interest of

the college was served by not issuing "Urgency Certificate" by the Principal, if the goods

were urgently required and the formalities were to be given a go-by. All these violations

of provisions of General Financial Rules and violations of basic principles of fairness on

the part of the Principal amounted to misconduct in the exigencies of circumstances and

in view of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. Even if the Appeal Committee has

not defined misconduct, the misconduct is writ large on the findings of the Appeal

Committee and findings of the Inquiry Authority.

16. The Counsel urged that the petitioner had no wrong intention and the

misconduct implies a wrongful and mala fide intention and not merely an error of

judgment. The Inquiry Authority has not held the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of

any amount or of deriving any wrongful benefit of money and the petitioner was held

guilty of merely non-compliance of the formalities and this was a technical matter and for

that the petitioner should not have been held responsible since there was „Bursar‟ and

other persons of the Purchase Committee, who were also looking after the purchases.

17. I consider that this argument must fail. Wrongful intention of a person has

always to be inferred from the acts of the person and not from the words of the person.

The Inquiry Authority had not gone into allegation of misappropriation of funds or

purchases having been made at higher rates or the goods of being inferior quality or

whether the goods were purchased in the best interest of the college or not because

there were no charges framed against the petitioner on these counts. The Inquiry

Authority had gone into only those charges which were framed against the petitioner.

The charges against the petitioner were in respect of the petitioner acting in

contravention of the General Financial Rules in the matter of awarding works and goods

purchased for the College and these charges have been proved. The wrongful intention

of the petitioner can be inferred from the very fact that the petitioner despite being the

last signatory on all approvals did not deliberately put dates under his signatures so as

to keep the date of approval of the purchases as vague. I, therefore consider that this

argument of the petitioner must fail.

18. It is settled law that the scope of judicial review is very limited. This Court

cannot act as a court of appeal against the order of the Tribunal/Appeal Committee. All

the arguments of the petitioner are in the nature of appeal against the order of the

Appeal Committee and I consider that this Court cannot re-write the award passed by

the Appeal Committee after reconsidering the entire material. Suffice it to say that in this

case the principles of natural justice were meticulously followed, the Inquiry was

conducted in a total impartial manner, the Inquiry Authority and the Appeal Committee

acted in a total impartial and fair manner. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to

present his case and defend himself.

19. The argument of the petitioner is that the punishment of removal given to

him was totally disproportionate to the charges proved against him. The charges proved

against him were of technical breach of the General Financial Rules and the punishment

of his removal was a very harsh punishment.

20. The post of Principal is a post of trust. Principal being head of the

Institution is supposed to act in a fair responsible and trustworthy manner and if the trust

of the Governing Body evaporates in the Principal because of the acts and deeds of the

Principal and the Governing Body has removed the Principal after conducting an inquiry

and following due process, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the punishment

awarded to the Principal and cannot thrust the services of the Principal on the Governing

Body. In Dr. S.B.Dutt v. University of Delhi 1959 SCR 1236, the High Court had set

aside an award of the Arbitrator observing that the award declaring that Mr. Dutt was still

a professor in University of Delhi was contrary to law since no Court could or would have

given him such relief. The High Court felt that this declaration amounted to a specific

enforcement of a contract of personal service which was forbidden by Section 21 of the

Specific Relief Act and therefore disclosed an error on the face of the award. This

judgment of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court and Supreme

Court upheld the order of High Court observing that it was in the entire agreement with

the view expressed of the High Court and the contract of personal service cannot be

specifically enforced in Section 21 Clause (b) of Specific Relief Act.

21. In T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. K. Meerabai 2006(2) SSC 255,

the Supreme Court observed that scope of judicial review was very limited. Sympathy or

generosity as a factor is impermissible. Loss of confidence was the primary factor and

not the amount of money misappropriated. Since the respondent employee was found

guilty of misappropriation of Corporation‟s funds there was nothing wrong in Corporation

losing confidence or faith in such an employee.

22. In Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 321 Supreme Court

observed that inference with the quantum of punishment cannot be a matter of routine.

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the proved charges clearly established

that the respondent employee failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity,

honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

The decision of the bank to dismiss the employee did not suffer from any infirmity. The

Supreme Court set aside the order of Single Judge and Division Bench on the quantum

of punishment while upholding the dismissal of the employee. In Janatha Bazar (South

Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) & Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari

Noukarara Sangha & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517, the Supreme Court held that even if a

financial irregularity is of a very small amount the only punishment is dismissal.

23. In light of above judgments I consider that the punishment awarded to the

petitioner cannot be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the

petitioner. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

September 04, 2009                                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn