Delhi High Court
Iqbal Nath Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 February, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 8007/2009
% Date of Decision: 04.02.2010
Iqbal Nath Sharma .... Petitioner
Through Mr. B.S. Verma, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. R. Upadhyay,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd December, 2008
in OA 1690/2008 titled as Iqbal Nath Sharma Vs. UOI dismissing the
petition of the petitioner and upholding the punishment imposed upon
him on account of fraud played by the petitioner in claiming medical
reimbursement on account of fictitious medical bills.
Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, an order dated 17th
November, 2006 imposing a penalty of removal from service had been
passed against the petitioner. The order of removal from service dated
17th November, 2006 was assailed in an appeal which was also
dismissed by an order dated 12th March, 2007 which was also assailed
in OA 912/2007.
The said OA titled as Iqbal Nath Sharma Vs. UOI & Ors. was
disposed of by order dated 24th January, 2008 setting aside the
appellate order dated 12th March, 2007 and the matter was remanded
back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order.
Consequent to the order dated 24th January, 2008, remanding
the matter back to the Appellate Authority, the respondents have again
passed the order dated 25th April, 2008 considering the contentions and
pleas and in exercise of power vested under Rule 27(2)(c)(i) CCS(CCA)
Rules, 1965, have confirmed the penalty of removal of service imposed
by Disciplinary Authority Sh. I.N. Sharma and rejected the appeal.
The petitioner had joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy in 1969 and
on completion of 17 years of service after retirement on 31st July, 1986,
he was re-employed in Cabinet Secretariat on 23rd August, 1986. The
inquiry was conducted against the petitioner for submitting forged
acknowledgement receipt dated 28th July, 1998 showing false receipt of
his medical bills amounting to Rs. 52,304.10 allegedly submitted by
him to Senior Field Officer, Training Institute, Gurgaon. Allegations
were also made against him and he was charged with submitting false
receipt dated 26th October, 1998 showing receipt of his medical bills for
the amount of Rs. 52968.45. Another false receipt dated 24th January,
1999 showing receipt of his medical bills amounting to Rs. 54753.15
was also alleged. The allegations were also made for submitting many
other forged acknowledgement receipts for various amounts. Beside
submitting false receipts for the medical bill, he was also charged with
submitting false medical bill for Rs.1,50487.40 for his treatment
purportedly from one Dr. V.P. Agarwal at ENT, Supercare Centre, Uttam
Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. On enquiry it was found that at the
address given by the petitioner, no such doctor was running any
nursing home or clinic in that name or in any other name. The cash
memo attached with the bills were also found to be from non-existent
chemist shop.
The Tribunal while considering the pleas and contentions have
noted that de-novo inquiry initiated against the petitioner did not
prejudice him in any manner and could not be a ground for setting
aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Regarding submission
of the forged bills it was also found that at the address of the bill
instead of M/s. Jain & Sons, Moti Nagar, a provision store under the
name of M/s. Khalsa Provision Store was in existence. The provision
store, however, never dealt with drugs and consequently, the finding
that the petitioner has submitted fictitious and manipulated bills was
sustained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically
contended that the shops from where the medicines were purchased
had been demolished. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, has
failed to show any evidence regarding this.
The case of the petitioner is not that there is no evidence against
him. The evidence established against him is sufficient for action
against him. There is no such illegality or irregularity in the order of
the Tribunal which will entail interference by this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has submitted forged receipts of large number of
medical bills for various amounts and have also submitted fictitious
medical bills. In the circumstances, the decision of the Appellate
authority and the Disciplinary Authority to remove him from the service
cannot be faulted. The plea of proportionality has also been considered
by the Tribunal and considering the facts and circumstances we do not
find any ground to interfere with the same. We also obtained
photocopies of the evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer and
perused the same. After perusing the same, we do not feel that it is a fit
case to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is
without any merit. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 04, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
