Delhi High Court
Usha Rani Sood vs Indian Agricultural Statistics ... on 27 March, 2017
$~04
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2787/2012
Date of decision: 27th March, 2017
USHA RANI SOOD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.S. Pandey and Mr. H.S. Tiwari,
Advocates.
versus
INDIAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Gagan Mathur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Usha Rani Sood-the petitioner on death of her husband was appointed
on compassionate grounds to the Group „D‟ post of Supporting Staff Grade-I
on 15th March, 1997 in the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute.
2. By memorandum dated 1st May, 2006, enquiry proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner as per Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the following articles of
charge:-
"LIST OF PARAGRAPHS OF CHARGES FRAMED
AGAINST SMT. USHA RANI SOOD, S.S. GRADE-I,
IASRI, NEW DELHI
A complaint has been received that in year 2005,
when Smt. Usha Rani Sood was posted as S.S. Grade-I in
Indian Agricultral Statistics Research Institute, then she had
taken Rs.1,00,000/- in a fraudulent manner from Sh.
Rajender Kumar, Assistant (Storage Department) by giving
him false assurance and her this behaviour is against the
disciplines and office rules.
Therefore, from the abovesaid act of Smt. Sood, it is
proved that she is having lack of truthfulness/honesty in her
which is undignified/shameful for an employee of
Institute/Council. Therefore, this act of her is a clear
violation of Rule 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (iii) of C.C.S. (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 which applies on an employee of
Institute/Council. "
3. The petitioner admitted the charge in writing before the Enquiry Officer
on 27th July, 2006. In view of the admission, the inquiry officer did not
proceed to record the statement of witnesses. He submitted his report
holding that the petitioner as "guilty". The Disciplinary Authority passed an
order of removal from service dated 23rd August, 2006. The appeal
preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority
vide order dated 23rd September, 2006.
4. The order dated 23rd September, 2006 was challenged by the
petitioner in OA No.2401/2006, which was partially allowed vide order
dated 23rd May, 2007 with an order of remand to the Appellate Authority to
reconsider and pass a speaking and reasoned order.
5. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 29 th
June, 2007. The petitioner thereupon filed a review petition, which was also
rejected by the order dated 11th April, 2008.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had not
understood what was put to her by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had
taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from Rajender Kumar (Assistant-
Store), the complainant. The petitioner relies upon the receipt dated 28th
June, 2006 executed by Rajender Kumar, affirming that he had been
refunded Rs.9900/- and Rs.90,100/- was still due. Referring to the written
note dated 27th April, 2006, it is submitted that the petitioner had admitted
having taken Rs.1,00,000/- from Rajender Kumar, who used to work in the
store. She had promised to refund the said amount in monthly instalments of
Rs.1000/- each.
7. The petitioner, we notice, has admitted the allegations on three
different occasions. The written note dated 27th April, 2006, states that the
petitioner had taken Rs.1,00,000/- for securing a job for the complainant-
Rajender Kumar‟s son. No doubt, there is a difference between what was
accepted by the petitioner and what was recorded thereafter with the
signatures of Kuldeep Kumar Hans, Vishal Lakhan Pal, Hayat Singh and
Basant Kumar, but this would not be a cause or concern, for the said four
officers along with the complainant-Rajender Kumar were cited as witnesses
in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner thereafter on 27th July, 2006
before the Enquiry Officer had specially admitted the charges levelled
against her. The said order sheet, in English, records that the petitioner had
received a copy of the charge sheet along with annexures, had understood
the charges levelled against her, and that she had accepted the said charges.
She had signed the order sheet in English.
8. The Tribunal in the impugned order has also referred to the letter
dated 14th August, 2006, written by the petitioner herself in Hindi and has
been reproduced in the impugned order. English translation of the same as
filed by the petitioner is as under:-
"Vide Office Memo 1 (S4)/2006 O.M.V. dated 3.8.2006 I
was given a copy of the inquiry report, wherein I am asked
to submit by written explanation. Therefore, in this regard, I
have to state that the charges levelled against him are
correct and I did not tell lie.
Even prior to the inquiry, the office had asked me even
then I had not told lie that at that time I had assured that I
will return the amount taken from Rajender Kumar Ji.
Accordingly I am paying Rs.1000/- per month to Shri
Rajender Kumar Ji and till now I have paid him Rs.10,000/-
and I will pay back remaining amount every month. This is
the reason that I am an employee of lower category and
according to my income, I will pay back the entire amount
gradually.
I request you I may be exonerated from the charges
levelled against me so that I can pull on with my family
because I am the only person to feed my family. I may be
pardoned."
In the letter dated 14th August, 2006, the petitioner accepts having received a
copy of the enquiry report and that she was asked to submit her written
explanation. She did not dispute or challenge her admission as recorded by
the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner in fact had once again accepted the
charges levelled and admitted that they were correct. She had pleaded, that
having not spoken a lie, she should be pardoned. She was the only one to
feed her family.
9. In these circumstances, we do not accept the exculpatory "version"
propounded by the petitioner. The petitioner was not misled to believe that
she was pleading guilty as to the charge of having taken loan of
Rs.1,00,000/- and that she had never accepted the charge that this amount
was obtained to procure a job for the complainant‟s son. This alibi of the
petitioner, it is evident, is an afterthought and is not true. Her admissions
speak and are declaratory. They amount to confession of guilt. In any case,
we do not think that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Appellate
Authority and the Reviewing Authority are perverse, which no reasonable
man would have reached in the given facts.
10. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment awarded
is disproportionate. Reliance is placed upon on the order dated 19 th July,
2016. We do not think that the punishment can be called and held to be
disproportionate to the gravity of offence/charge. The punishment is not
such which would merit interference on the doctrine of proportionality. The
charge and misconduct is such which cannot be overlooked or treated as
benign or innocuous. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that
Rajender Kumar was not proceeded against departmentally has to be
rejected. He had suffered. In any case negative equality cannot be pleaded.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed
without any order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
MARCH 27, 2017
NA
