Y. N. Singh vs National Seeds Corporation Ltd. & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3930 Del

*            HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

       Judgment reserved on: September 14, 2009
     Judgment pronounced on: September 24, 2009

+                   W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991

      Y. N. Singh                       ...   Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Ms. Mridula
                          Ray Bhardwaj, Mr. Ajit Kumar
                          Gupta and Mrs. Archna Pathak
                          Dave, Advocates.

                              versus

      National Seeds Corporation Ltd. & Others...Respondents
                Through: Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

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

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

SUNIL GAUR, J.

*

1. In the year 1983, petitioner- Y.N. Singh was Deputy

Seed Officer and was functioning as the Area Manager,

National Seed Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the

respondent-Corporation). The salary of the staff of National

Seed Corporation, Siwan, Patna, for the month of March,

1983, was sent to the petitioner vide letter of 6th April, 1983.

Later on while checking the Receipt and Payment Statement

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 1 and the Bank statement of Siwan Sub-Unit for the month of

April & May, 1983, it was found that the salary of the Siwan

Staff of respondent-Corporation for the month of March,

1983, was disbursed by the petitioner out of contingent

advance and the petitioner had allegedly made a fictitious

entry in the Receipt and Payment Statement of Siwan Sub-

Unit regarding deposit of demand draft dated 4th April, 1983,

of Rs.2,907.83p and petitioner was charged of

misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by encashing the

same on 12th April, 1983.

2. On 19th September, 1986, a Memorandum (Annexure P-

4) along with Statement of Imputation of Charges (Annexure-

II) was served upon the petitioner, wherein following Charges

were levelled against the petitioner:-

STATEMENT OF IMPUTATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE IN RESPECT OF SH.Y.N.SINGH, THE THEN AREA MANAGER, NSC, SIWAN.

Charge No.1.

1. While Sh. Y.N. Singh, DSO was working as Area Manager, Siwan Sub-Unit, a Demand Draft No. 526275 dt. 4.4.83 for Rs.2907.83 being the salary of NSC Siwan staff for the month of March, 83 was sent to him by Regional Office Patna vide letter No. P-III/Cash/NSC/82-83/10924 dated 6.4.83.The details of salary of Staff is indicated below:

             1)     Sh. Y.N. Singh, Dy. Seed Officer           Rs. 1720.69
             2)     Sh. B.K. Tiwari, Jr. Store Keeper          Rs. 732.40

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991                                                    Page 2
              3)     Sh. Baleshwar Singh, Watchman           Rs. 454.74

                                                     ________________
                                                          Rs.2907.83

2. The R&P Statement No. 2702 of Siwan Sub-Unit for April, 83 indicates that the amount of said DD (Rs.2907.83) was shown on 18.4.83 as receipt during the day meaning thereby that the amount of the DD in question was encashed. On the payment side of R&P it is also seen that the DD in question was again shown to have been deposited in the Bank. The bank statement of Siwan Sub-unit for April, 83 indicates that no such amount was deposited in the bank as no such credit was appearing in the bank statement for the month of April, 1983.

3. The SBI Patna in their letter No. Acctts/835 dated 25.8.84 intimated that the said DD was paid on 12.4.83 in the usual manner and not on 18.4.83 i.e. the date shown in the R&P cited above. Letter No. 29/69 dated 7.3.86 of Branch Manager, SBI, Siwan forwarding therewith a photocopy of paid DD No.526275 dated 4.4.83 for Rs.2907.83 also indicates that the said DD was encashed by Shri Y.N. Singh on 12.4.83.

4. Voucher No. VP 268 dated 27.4.83 indicates that the salary of the staff amounting to Rs.2907.83 indicates that the March, 83 was paid to the staff of NSC Siwan out of the amount of DD No.526275 dated 4.4.83 whereas a reference to R&P statement of Siwan sub-unit Number 2714 indicates that the salary of Siwan staff for the month of March,83 under Vr. No. 268 has been paid out of the contingent advance.

5. From the above it is seen that if Sh. Y.N. Singh has actually deposited the DD in question into the Bank on 18.4.83 as shown in the R&P statement No. 2702, the amount of DD should have been reflected on the Bank statement of SBI Siwan for the month of April, 83. This has not been the case. Secondly, if the DD in question was encashed and shown on the receipt side of R&P, as is evident from R&P Sl. No. 2702, the payment of the amount of

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 3 DD in question on the payment side of R&P statement should have been shown only once. By showing the payment twice once as a deposit in Bank at P.2702 of R&P for April, 83, and secondly as a contingent expenditure under Vr. No. 268 of R & P at page 2714, it is evident that Shri Y.N.Singh has misappropriated the amount of Rs.2907.83 by encashing the DD No.526275 on 12.4.83.

Charge No. II

1. The Accounts Officer and Regional Manager, NSC, Patna vide their letters No. P.III/(6)/Pat/82-83 dated 25.7.83 and P.III (Cash)/NSC/Petitioner/84-85 dated 31.8.84 respectively directed Sh. Y.N. Singh to intimate the where abouts of said DD as the amount of the same was not appearing in the bank statement for the month of April, 83. Shri Y.N. Singh did not send any reply/ comments/ explanations to any of the letters written to him by Accounts Officer and Regional Manager, NSC, Patna. Thus, he showed disobedience and utter disregard to the above official communications which is an act of gross insubordination.

From the above actions, Shri Y.N. Singh has shown himself as an officer of doubtful intergrity and has shown lack of devotion to duty and also acted in a manner quite unbecoming of Corporation employee. He has thus violated the provisions of Rules 3(I)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as made applicable to the employees of this Corporation.

3. Petitioner had sought time to submit his statement of

defence and had asked for inspection of documents.

According to the petitioner, the documents were not

supplied to him. So, statement of defence was not filed by

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 4 the petitioner. Enquiry proceedings stood concluded with the

Enquiry Report (Annexure P-11) holding that the charges

stood proved against the petitioner. Vide letter of 29th May,

1990, (Annexure P-12) petitioner had submitted his

objections to the Enquiry Report and vide Order of 13th June,

1990 (Annexure P-13), the Enquiring Authority had imposed

the punishment of 'dismissal from service' upon the

petitioner which was challenged by way of Appeal

(Annexure- P-14). The appeal filed by the petitioner also

stood dismissed by the Appellate Authority/ Board of

Directors vide impugned Order of 14th June, 1991 (Annexure

P-15).

4. The challenge to the impugned Order (Annexure- P-15)

is on the ground that the petitioner was denied the

reasonable opportunity to defend himself as vital documents

i.e. bank deposit counter foil slips of 12th April, 1983, relating

the demand draft in question, was neither supplied nor was

permitted to be inspected, despite repeated written

requests. The conduct of the Enquiring Authority to examine

B.K. Tiwari on 19th March, 1990, i.e. after the conclusion of

the enquiry, had been done behind the back of the

petitioner. Order of the Appellate Authority is said to be non-

speaking one, which purportedly violates Rule 27 (2) of CCS

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 5 (CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner claims that his whole case is

based upon production of original demand draft and the

original bank deposit counter foil slips of 12th April, 1983,

and the Enquiring Authority did not summon this record and

has illegally concluded that it was not warranted. Quashing

of the impugned Order of 'dismissal from service' is sought

by the petitioner on the ground that the principles of natural

justice have been violated.

5. In the counter affidavit, respondent- Corporation has

denied that the petitioner was actively involved in the

activities of Technical Staff Association of the respondent-

Corporation and ignorance has been expressed regarding

petitioner having made any complaint against the former

Chairman and Manager Director of the respondent-

Corporation. The stand taken is that the petitioner had

himself had encashed the demand draft and had illegally

misappropriated it and there was no question of his handing

over the demand draft to Mr. B.K. Tiwari, Junior Store Keeper,

and of his depositing it and producing a counter foil in

support thereof. According to the respondents, production of

the original bank records had no relevance as the State Bank

of India had communicated in writing that the amount of the

demand draft in question had been paid to and was received

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 6 by the petitioner personally. Rest of the averments made in

the writ petition stand denied.

6. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Submissions

made have been considered and the decisions cited, have

also been perused.

7. Petitioner's counsel had laid great stress on the

contention that it is just not possible to encash a demand

draft personally. Grievance of non supply of documents i.e.

the original bank records has been made and it has been

stated that documents relied upon were not in the list of

documents and the impugned Order of the Appellate

Authority is not a speaking one.

8. On the contrary, the submission of the respondent's

counsel is that even if the statement of B.K. Tiwari is

ignored, still there is ample evidence to support the finding

of the Enquiry Officer and the original bank records were not

required to be produced, as it stands established from the

evidence on record that the petitioner had claimed

conveyance charges for personally travelling from the office

of the Corporation to the State Bank of India on 12th April,

1983, when the draft in question was encashed. It is pointed

out that in certain banks the demand drafts are encashed

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 7 where the Officer Incharge signs the demand draft and puts

his stamp on it. Thus, it is submitted that the plea of the

petitioner of original pay-in-slip (counter foil) being not

available is of no relevance, as from the records it is

established that Mr. B.K. Tiwari had not claimed any

conveyance charges on the day when the demand draft in

question was encashed. It is stated that the Appellate

Authority had applied its mind and there is no violation of

principles of natural justice and so this writ deserves

rejection.

9. Upon careful perusal of material on record, this court

finds that the violation of principles of natural justice is writ

large on the face of it, as the Order of the Appellate

Authority is totally non speaking one, which violates Rule 27

(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandates as under:-

(2). Self-contained, speaking and reasoned order to be passed and to issue over signature of prescribed Appellate Authority.

10. Appeal (Annexure P-14) filed by the petitioner before

the Board of Directors/ Appellate Authority reveals that the

Order of the Disciplinary Authority has been assailed on

number of grounds and impugned Order (Annexure P-15) is

totally non-speaking. It simply records that the Board of

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 8 Directors/ Appellate Authority after perusing all the

connected documents and discussions rejected the appeal of

the petitioner. A very pertinent and valid ground raised in

the appeal is that Sh. B.K Tiwari was examined by the

Enquiring Authority much after the closure of the Enquiry. It

would be relevant to reproduce the specific ground taken by

the petitioner in the Appeal (Annexure P-14), which is as

follows:-

"It is further pertinent to note that the enquiry was closed on 13.2.1990 as per the enquiry report submitted by Shri MVV Subramanium (kindly refer to page 1 of the enquiry report) but it is surprising that shri B.K. Tiwari, whose name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the appellant was examined by the Enquiry Officer on 19.3.1990 (name of the place of examination was not mentioned in the Enquiry Report) behind the back of the appellant and without affording any opportunity whatsoever to cross examine the said Shri B.K.Tiwari."

11. The contention of the respondent's counsel that even if

statement of Sh. B.K. Tiwari is excluded from consideration,

it will have no bearing on merits, cannot be appreciated in

the present proceedings as the same was required to be

dealt with by the Appellate Authority while passing the

impugned Order. Normally speaking, Appellate Authority is

not required to give separate reasons while concurring with

the Disciplinary Authority, but it is required in the present

case because the Enquiring Authority is said to have

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 9 recorded the statement of one B.K. Tiwari behind the back of

the petitioner and that too after closing the enquiry

proceedings. The need for clear and careful wording of the

Appellate order confirming to Rule 27 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules,

has been emphasized in the Director - General P & T Orders.

What has been emphasized is that it is necessary that all the

points raised in appeal are summarized by the Appellate

Authority in the Order and are also logically discussed to

show how the grounds taken in the appeal are not tenable or

acceptable. This was required to be done in view of the

statutory mandate as contained in Rule 27 (2) of the CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965.

12. The contentions raised herein by the petitioner

touching upon the merits of the case cannot be gone into by

this Court in the writ proceedings. In this regard decisions

reported in 'General Manager, Kisn Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd.

Sultanpur, U.P. vs. Satrughan Nishad and Others' 2003 (8)

SCC 639; 'Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch vs. Maharaj' 2003

(9) SCC 191; 'State of A.P. Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (Dead)

through Lrs. And another' 2003 (10) SCC 121 and 'State of

U.P. and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav & Another' 2006 (5)

SCC 673 can be referred to with advantage. However, the

grounds taken by the petitioner in the Appeal (Annexure P-

W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991 Page 10

14), are required to be answered by the Appellate Authority.

In this view of this matter, impugned Order (Annexure P-15)

cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Personal

hearing to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority is

desirable as a major penalty has been imposed upon the

petitioner.

13. In the light of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed with

costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/-. Respondent No.3/ Appellate

Authority is directed to hear the petitioner and to pass a

speaking order on the Appeal (Annexure P-14) of the

petitioner within a period of four months from the date,

respondent No.3 is apprised of this Order. It goes without

saying that the fate of the Appeal be communicated to the

petitioner within two weeks of taking decision thereupon.

14. This petition stands disposed of in the terms, as

aforesaid.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

September 24, 2009
rs




W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 1991                                Page 11