V.Vikraman vs Uoi & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 618 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   W.P.(C) 2328/2007
    V.VIKRAMAN                                          ..... Petitioner
                  Through       Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Mr. Kanishka
                                Gaur, Advocates

                       versus

    UOI & ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                  Through       Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with
                                Mr.Shambhu Chaturvedi & Mr. B.V.Niren,
                                Advocates for respondents No.1 to 4
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
                 JUDGMENT

% 02.02.2017

INDIRA BANERJEE, J. (ORAL)

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of

punishment dated 25.10.2005 whereby the petitioner has been

awarded the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time

scale of pay for a period of two years with further directions that he

would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction

and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future

increments of his pay.

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 1 of 9 On or about 5.11.1993, the petitioner joined the Special Service

Bureau (SSB) under the Cabinet Secretariat as Company Commander

(Group A) and was posted to the „C‟ Company at Jang in Tawang

District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh under Group Centre Dirang.

After undergoing training at the National Industrial Security

Academy, Secunderabad, the petitioner joined the „C‟ Company at

Jang, Tawang District as Officer Incharge in January, 1995.

On or about 20.12.1996, the „C‟ Company of Group Centre

Dirang, of which the petitioner was Officer in-Charge, made over

charge to the „E‟ Company, and the petitioner was moved to the

location of „C‟ Company at Bomdila, also in Arunachal Pradesh.

On or about 24.05.1997, in course of audit inspection at

Tawang, by an Accounts Officer, from the office of the Divisional

Headquarters at Itanagar, it transpired that food items worth

Rs.77,000/- odd, for which payment had been made, had not been

supplied by the contractor. Investigation followed, after which a

charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.9.2001. The petitioner

was inter alia charged with fictitious endorsements which led to the

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 2 of 9 passing of the bills.

Excerpts from Article I of the "Statement of Imputation of

Misconduct or Mishehaviour in support of the Article of Charge‟

framed against the petitioner are extracted herein below:

"That the said Sh. V.Vikraman, while functioning as Coy Commander „C‟ Coy Jang during the aforesaid period, constituted a Line Committee on 15.02.1996 with Sh.V.Vikraman, Asstt. Comdt. As President Insp(GD) Hari Lal and No.6340634 HC (GD) D.R. Sharma as member. As per the Line Committee Report various ration items were inspected and found satisfactory. Thereafter, a receipt voucher on the body of the Line Committee report was signed by the said Sh. V.Vikraman certified that "received and entered in stock book page No.163 on 15.2.96". Subsequently, a bill bearing No. SDG/SSB/Jang/06/95-96 dated 16.2.96 for Rs.2,15,33.00 of M/s S.D. Gupta, Tezpur in connection with supply of various kinds of ration items was processed and necessary certificate was endorsed on the body of the bill to the effect that "the stores received correctly in good condition and taken on ration stock book at page-163 dated 15.2.96" duly signed by the said Sh.V.Vikraman. The said bill was forwarded to the Commandant, CG SSB Dirang vide „C‟ Coy. Jang office letter no.GCR/C/QR/95-96/2709 dated 15.2.96. However, during scrutiny it was revealed from the register of „E‟ Coy, Jang opened on 21.1.97 that 646.000 Kgs of Onion, 1396.000 Kgs of Potato, 8890.000 Kgs of fresh vegetable, 290.000 Kgs of meat-an-hoof and 175.000 Kgs of Dry fruit were due from M/s. S.D. Gupta against Bill No.SDG/SSB/Jang106/9596 dated 16.2.96 for Rs.2,15,300.00. Subsequently during inspection as on 24.5.97, following ration items were still to be supplied by M/s S.D. Gupta, Tezpur against the above bill:

      WP(C) 2328/2007                                       page 3 of 9
        1.    Onion               :       1.500 Kgs
       2.    Potato              :       36.000 Kgs
       3.    Fresh Vegetable :           7409.500 Kgs
       4.    Dry Fruit           :       157.00 Kgs

Total cost of the above ration items comes to Rs.77,079.00"

Article II of the Articles of Charges against the petitioner are as

follows:

"Article- II

That the said Shri V.Vikraman, while functioning in the aforesaid office, during the above period, has committed neglect of duty and shown lack of integrity by endorsing fictitious certificate on the body of the Bill No. KSG/08/C- Coy/Jang/95-96 dated 15.2.96 of Ration items amounting to Rs.1,60,320/- of M/s Kripa Shankar Gupta.

The said Sh. V.Vikraman, Assistant Commandant by the above Act, exhibited a conduct most unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and shown lack of integrity and devotion to duty, thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also attracts the provision of Rule 106 of the GFR."

The petitioner duly replied to the charge sheet by a letter dated

05.10.2001 after which inquiry proceedings were conducted against

the petitioner.

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 4 of 9 The Inquiry Officer found that:

"On examination of the records and the prosecution witnesses it is established that the bill no.SDG/SSB/Jang/06/95-96 dated 15.2.96 amounting Rs.2,15,300/- was processed for payment to the firm by endorsing a certificate by Shri. V. Vikraman, Assistant Commandant certifying that the stores were received correctly in good condition and taken into stock ledger at page no.163 dated 15.2.96 without receiving full stores of the bill and without entering the stores in the stock ledger page no.163.

However, on examination of the records it is found that all short supplied items during the day of line committee dated 15.2.96 were supplied by the contractor at a later dates in phased manner and hence there was no financial loss to the Govt.

11. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING All the prosecution witnesses have affirmed that bill supply of ration items according to the bill no.SDG/SSB/Jang/06/95-96, was not actually made. There were short supply of stores like potato, onion, fresh vegetables, MOF and dry fruits. The contractors, however, issued due slip for those items not supply and to be supplied at a later date. Therefore, it is proved that the certificate given by the Line Committee conducted under the presidentship of Shri V.Vikraman, Asstt. Commandant. On 15.2.96 that the stores were received correctly in good condition as per the bill is false and not correct. Accordingly the certificate recorded on the body of the said bill by Sh.V.Vikraman, A/C that the stores were received in good condition is also false and not correct. There are enough documentary circumstantial evidence that the stores were not entered in the stock ledger page no.163 on 15.2.96 as recorded on the body of the bill. However, stock entry was found to have been done at page 189 of another register.

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 5 of 9 On scrutiny the relevant records like stock ledger, consumption register, it is found that the stores earlier short supplied on the date 15.2.96 on which line committee was held were subsequently made good and there was no loss to the state".

In the inquiry, it was apparently established that the petitioner

had given detailed false certificates on the basis of which the bills

were cleared. Even though there was ultimately no loss to the

Exchequer, as the articles were later supplied, false certification was

in itself unbecoming of a government officer.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner emphatically argued that it

had been the long standing practice to issue certificates and clear bills

against due slips and the items in respect of which certificates were

granted used to be supplied at a later date.

Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner was

constrained to issue the certificates, incorrectly certifying receipt of

food articles, which had not been supplied, as per past practice, to

prevent disruption of supplies, which would have led to complete

chaos, as there would be no food.

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 6 of 9 Whatever be the exigencies, the issuance of false detailed

certificates as given by the petitioner, certainly tantamounts to

conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant, as observed above and

evinces lack of integrity. May be as contended by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, no loss was actually caused to

the Exchequer. However, the act of issuance of false certificates,

certifying that the goods had been received with details of purported

entries in stock registers, led to the passing and clearance of bills in

respect of articles not supplied.

It is fortuitous that the lost articles were made up as the supplier

supplied them, though after considerable delay, and there was no

actual loss. Even assuming that the petitioner had wrongly been

charged with causing loss to the Exchequer, that was not the only

charge against the petitioner. The petitioner had also been charged of

conduct unbecoming of a government servant, and that charge has

been established.

The petitioner has only been awarded the punishment of inter

alia reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale for a period of two

years and not the higher punishment of dismissal from service,

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 7 of 9 possibly having regard to the extenuating circumstances as argued by

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, including the

age and inexperience of the petitioner.

It appears that a Departmental Promotion Committee was held

to consider the promotion of the petitioner in 2003. However,

promotion was not granted to the petitioner as charge sheet had been

issued to the petitioner on 14.12.2001 and disciplinary proceedings

started against the petitioner, were still pending.

In the meanwhile on 4th October, 2002, officers junior to the

petitioner were granted Senior Time Scale of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.

15,200/-. Some of the charges against the petitioner were established

in the inquiry. In my view, the denial of promotion is not liable to be

interfered with nor the order of punishment. In my view, there can

also be no question of grant of senior time scale with effect from

4.4.2001 notwithstanding the findings against the petitioner in the

inquiry.

The order of punishment, impugned in this writ petition has

been passed after initiation of proper disciplinary proceedings by

WP(C) 2328/2007 page 8 of 9 issuance of a charge sheet informing the petitioner of the allegations

and/or charge against him. The petitioner duly replied to the charge

sheet, and his reply to the charge sheet was duly considered. An

enquiry was conducted. It is not for this Court exercising jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in appeal over the

finding of the Inquiry Authority or the decision of the Disciplinary

Authority. Nor can this Court re-analyse the evidence to examine if

the authorities arrived at the right finding.

The Inquiry against the petitioner was in accordance with the

principles of natural justice, giving the petitioner four opportunity to

defend himself. Furthermore, the petitioner was given a copy of the

Inquiry Report and the opportunity to make a representation against

the same. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings in

the Inquiry. Detailed representation of the petitioner has been

rejected by the President of India

The writ petition thus fails and the same is dismissed.

INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

WP(C) 2328/2007                                            page 9 of 9