Delhi High Court
Sh. Rajbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 11 February, 2019
$~33.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision:11.02.2019
% W.P.(C) 1382/2019
SH. RAJBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. N. K
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the
order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4102/2012. The
Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the
petitioner wherein he had assailed the charge memo dated 11.08.2004 issued
to him, the Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2008, and the orders dated
10.10.2011and 15.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority, subjecting him to punishment on account of the proven
misconduct.
2. The petitioner was charged vide memorandum dated 11.08.2004 as
follows:
" Article-I
Sh. Rajbir Singh, UDC/Gr.III, while posted as Sub
Inspector in the Country Liquour (L-9) Bonded Ware-house of
M/s.Som Distilleries,51 Rama Road, New Delhi inbonded the
consignment, having validity as per I.Ps upto 31.05.2004,
7.6.2004 and 15.6.2004 on 1.6.2004, 8.6.04 and 16.6.2004
without permission from the Competent Authority as required
under the Provision of Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, UDC/ Gr. III, while working in above
capacity misreported the stock position of the Bonded Ware-
House vide his report for the period 16.5.04 to 31.5.04, 1.6.04
to 7.6.04 and 1.6.04 to 15.6.04 as 4400 cases, 2400 cases and
3162cases under Clause 21 of terms and conditions of Country
Liquor supply for the year 2004-05 whereas the actual report
for the relevant period was 15200 cases, 10674 cases and
10400 cases respectively, thereby causing loss of excise
revenue which would have occurred on account of penalty on
the licensee.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, UDC/ Gr. III, has therefore, not only
violated the instructions/ rules of Punjab Excise Act 1914- but
also failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of Govt. Servant which is violative of the Rule
3(1)(ii)(iii) of CCS )(Conduct)Rules, 1964"
3. After a detailed inquiry, the Inquiry Officer rendered his detailed
Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2008, running into 13 pages, considering each
and every aspect of the matter and holding the petitioner guilty of the
aforesaid charge/ misconduct. After duly complying with the procedure, the
Disciplinary Authority passed a reasoned order dated 10.10.2011 -
subjecting the petitioner to the reduction of 2 increments in the time scale of
pay for a period of 2 years with the further direction that the Government
Servant will not earn increments of time during the period of such reduction
and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of
postponing the future increments of his pay.
4. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 15.10.2012. The Tribunal has not found merit in the petitioner's
Original Application and, consequently, the same has been rejected.
5. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
article of charge framed against him is not true. He submits that, as a matter
of fact, he had informed the concerned authorities with regard to the number
of cases of Country Liquor that were inbounded.
6. We cannot get into appreciation of evidence in these proceedings,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has, however,
insisted on reading out the alleged communications issued by him. We find
that the Inquiry Officer has exhaustively dealt with this submission of the
petitioner as follows:
"The CO has tried to defend himself against the charge of
misreporting on the plea that he had inbonded some cases with
permission but all these were included in the details of cases of
country liquor not supplied. He has given a bifurcation of the
cases received late with permission and that not received but
has failed to substantiate his claim with any supporting
documents.
On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is supported by
the Note dated 7.7.2004 (S-12)of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the then
DEO (IMFL)(PW-1)addressed to DC (E) after checking the
documents of L-9 licence of M/s Som Distillery (P)Ltd. after the
inspection dated 20.6.2004, wherein he has clearly mentioned
that there were consignments which were delayed and no
specific permission was obtained for inbonding. Secondly, the
number of cases of short supply as defined in Clause 21 of
Terms and Conditions of L-9 Licence was not adhered to in all
those periods (referred to in the Charge Sheet also). The
number of cases reported was less than the actual number of
cases.
His contention has been countered by the PO also in his written
brief stating that no documentary evidence of written intimation
dt. 1.6.04 has been produced by the CO. This argument on the
part of the PO is also supported by the additional document
(DD-2,3 & 4)provided by GM (Excise)i.e. Copy of UO no. 45
dt. 19.5.06 clearly stating that the CO had not made any
correspondence regarding revalidation of permits which are
part of enquiry, as per record available in the branch. This fact
is supported by the photocopy of letter dt. 4.7.05 of Sh. R.N.
Tyagi, Excise Inspector posted at the Som Distilleries (P)Ltd. ,
51 Rama Road, New Delhi furnished by GM (Excise)vide UO
no. F.1/Ex/CL/2005/581 dt. 29.9.05 as additional document
(marked as DD-2&3) wherein it has been also confirmed that
no letter for seeking permission to take delivery of the goods
which reached after the expiry of the date of validity of IPs was
available at the bonded ware house."
7. Thus, the Enquiry Officer has dealt with the factual stand of the
petitioner and rejected his defence upon appreciation of evidence. These
findings are not open to scrutiny in these proceedings as it is not a case of
perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence, or a case with no
evidence.
8. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
Appellate Authority has not passed a reasoned order while examining the
petitioner's departmental appeal.
9. We do not find any merit in this submission as well. A perusal of the
appellate order shows that the Appellate Authority has applied its mind
before rejecting the petitioner's appeal. When the Inquiry Report and the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority are detailed and reasoned, since
the Appellate Authority was agreeing with the findings returned against the
petitioner and the penalty imposed upon him, it was not obligatory for the
Appellate Authority to again pass a detailed order dealing with each and
every submission of the petitioner, as if it is passing the Original Order.
10. We, therefore, find absolutely no merit in this petition.
11. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2019
N.Khanna
