Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex. Constable Vinod Kumar (No.744/Rb) vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 June, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.401/2009 New Delhi, this the 2nd day of June, 2010 Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Ex. Constable Vinod Kumar (No.744/RB) R/o C-374, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. . Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Arun Bhardwaj with Sh. Gyanendra Singh) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police PHQs, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police (JCP) Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Vinod Kumar, the Applicant herein, joined Delhi Police as Constable on 25.2.1999. While working as Constable at Rashtrapati Bhawan, he was proceeded departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 vide Office Order dated 6.09.2006 (Annexure-A7) on the allegation that on 31.07.2006 W/HC (Min.) Manesh Kumari informed W/ASI Bimlesh Varun over telephone that on 28.07.2006 while she was making entry in the check sheet about salaries paid to the lower subordinates for the month of June and July 2006 she had found the salary bills of Constables (1) Ravinder Kumar, (2) Gajraj and (3) Kanhaiya Lal have been prepared by the said Unit despite Last Pay Certificates were issued to their respective units and those three Constables were already transferred from Rashtrapati Bhawan. On a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police/HQ(RB) it was revealed that Constable Ravinder Kumar was relieved on transfer from Rashtrapati Bhawan to North East District vide DD No.21, dated 1.4.2006 and his LPC was also sent to DCP, North East District vide DD No.703 dated 6.6.2006 but the Constable Vinod Kumar, the Applicant herein, prepared the salary of Constable Ravinder Kumar to the tune of Rs.10462/- for the month of June on the pay roll of Rashtrapati Bhawan and by deleting the Account Number of Constable Ravinder Kumar from the Computer and putting his own UTI Bank Account No.120010100039969 sent the same to his own UTI Bank Account. This was found to be with malafide intention of diverting Government funds to the Applicants own personal accounts. It also revealed that the Constable Gajraj and Kanhaiya Lal who were relieved from Rashtrapati Bhawan to Traffic Unit vide DD No.62 dated 15.6.2006 and DD No.54 dated 22.5.2006 respectively and their LPCs were also sent to Traffic Unit vide DD No.815 dated 7.7.2006 and DD No. 854 dated 12.07.2006 respectively. In these two cases also the Applicant prepared their salary bills for Rs.10,513/- and Rs.10462/- respectively for the month of July in Rashtrapati Bhawan Unit and put the same into his own UTI Bank Account, against the pay of those two constables through computer entries. It is also stated that the Applicant had also manipulated the salary of these 3 constables by adding extra allowances and reducing deductions whereby their respective salaries for the months were increased and the increased amount was transferred to the Applicants UTI Bank account. Thus, in the preliminary inquiry it was held that Applicant had managed to manipulate the salaries of these three constables and drew the same willfully, unauthorisedly and knowingly from the Government treasury without appropriate authorization which was construed as a grave misconduct on his part as pecuniary benefit that accrued to him was to the tune of Rs.31437/-. In the meantime, the amount of Rs.31437/- was recovered from him vide recovery Memo dated 2.8.2006, which was deposited later in the Government treasury vide TR No.22 dated 24.8.2006. The Applicant for the said alleged grave and serious misconduct was placed under suspension vide DD No.57, dated 3.8.2006 with the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan and communicated vide order dated 4.8.2006 (page-59) . The Applicant was departmentally proceeded under the provisions of Rule 15 (2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 and the regular inquiry was initiated vide order dated 18.08.2006. Inspector Shiv Dayal was entrusted the departmental inquiry who conducted the same expeditiously and prepared the summary of allegations, list of documents and list of prosecution witnesses and served the same on the Applicant on 17.10.2006. As the Applicant did not admit the allegations and Inspector Shiv Dayal was transferred, the said inquiry was entrusted to Inspector Nand Kishore for further proceedings. The Inquiry Officer has recorded the statement of seven prosecution witnesses, gave opportunity to the Applicant for cross examination and after completion of the evidence produced by the prosecution the Inquiry Officer framed the charge against the Applicant dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure-A4) and got the same approved by the Disciplinary Authority and served on him on 28.02.2007. But the Applicant did not admit the charge. He produced two defence witnesses in his defence and the Inquiry Officer recorded their statement in his presence. The Inquiry Officer completed the said departmental enquiry and submitted his findings dated 8.4.2007 concluding therein that the charge framed against Constable Vinod Kumar stood proved. Consequently, a copy of the findings was served upon the Applicant on 11.4.2007 vide UO No.1250 dated 9.4.2007. After due examination of the IOs Report and hearing the Applicant, competent Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 18.05.2007 (Annexure-A1) imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect and treating the suspension period from 3.8.2006 to the date of imposition of punishment as the period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Applicant submitted an appeal. The Appellate Authority went through the relevant records, heard the Applicant on 08.04.2008 and after detailed consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was no reason to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly he upheld the punishment of dismissal from service and rejected the appeal vide his order dated 1.5.2008 (Annexure-A2).
2. The Applicant, having been aggrieved by the orders of both the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers :-
A. To quash and set aside the impugned Order No.XII/12/2007/4203/SIP(II)PBQ. Dated Delhi, the 28/2/2008, whereby the applicant has illegally been denied for participating in interview for the post of Constable in the recruitment held in year 2007, by the respondents.
B. To direct the respondents to take the applicant in the service with all the consequential benefits.
C. Any other relief, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passi din favour of the applicant.
D. Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
3. Shri Arun Bhardwaj along with Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned Counsel for the Applicant, contended that the penalty imposed upon the applicant was excessive, disproportionate and unjust in view of the fact that the Applicant had put in hard work and his past service records were good and the Applicant was young to have been dismissed from service. Further, his contention was that the Applicant submitted his application to the Inquiry Officer on 20.10.2006 to supply him the copies of some additional documents which could enable him to defend his case properly. But the request for the same was rejected by the Inquiry Officer. He also contended that the preliminary inquiry report and the statement of witnesses in the departmental inquiry proceedings were not supplied to the Applicant. Shri Bhardwaj contends that non-supply of these relevant documents was denial of fair opportunity to the Applicant to defend his case and, as such, it was not as per the principles of natural justice. He further contends that the Applicant does not know the computer operation, data entry, less to say that he himself has manipulated computer entries to divert salary amount of the 3 constables to his UTI Bank account. This aspect, he submitted, could not be technically substantiated by the Respondents. Shri Bhardwajs argument is that Women Head Constable Manesh Kumari detected on 28.07.2006 the alleged discrepancies but instead of reporting the facts to the Branch Head and the Accountant on the same date but the discrepancy was told to Women ASI Vimlesh Varun on telephone after 4 days i.e. on 31.07.2006. Such belated reporting, the counsel for the Applicant argues, goes to show that the mistake has been committed by Manesh Kumari, Head Constable not by the Applicant. Shri Bhardwaj argued very forcefully that during those 4 days the Head Constable Manesh Kumari tried to manipulate the records in such a manner that the Applicant could be implicated and she succeeded in her effort to implicate the Applicant. Highlighting the innocence of the Applicant, Shri Bhardwaj submits that no sooner the Applicant came to know that salary of some of his colleagues had by mistake been credited to his account, he took steps to deposit the said amount in the Government account and narrated the whole situation before his senior officers. Another contention raised during the hearing was that the Applicant joined Delhi Police as a Constable (Executive) and did not have the knowledge of working in the accounts matters, and computer matters in the position of Ministerial Staff, nor he was imparted any specific training to perform such duties of the Ministerial staff. Therefore, it is the Applicant who has been assisting the Ministerial staff, rather than, he himself doing the works in the preparation of the salary bills. This aspect has not been appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority. He also submitted that it is the PW-7, Manesh Kumari who used to prepare the salary bills and did prepare June and July 2006 salary bills and has also signed the salary bills of lower subordinates staff for those two months and, therefore, the error that has been done by the PW-7 should not have been transferred on the head of the Applicant. Further, Shri Arun Bhardwaj stated that the Disciplinary Authority has not given adequate weight to the evidence gathered from the defence witnesses and he has been swayed away by the evidence received from the prosecution witnesses. Shri Arun Bhardwaj also brought another angle in his contention that the type of irregularities/mistakes for which the Applicant had been dismissed from service, normally takes place and has cited certain instances in ground Q of the application. He also drew our attention to Para P of the OA to say that Woman Head Constable Manesh Kumari was also doing similar mistakes and committing such lapses by drawing the pay of Head Constable Prahlad Singh for the month of August 2006, while he was already retired on 31.07.2006. The ground taken by him was that while Manesh Kumari, Head Constable is continuing in service for the similar lapses, the Applicant had been punished and dismissed from service. Thus, Shri Bhardwaj pleads that the impugned orders should be quashed and the Applicant be reinstated into service.
4. On the contrary, Mrs. Renu George, learned Counsel for the Respondents, very vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for Applicant. Mrs. George submitted that during the month of June and July 2006, the Applicant was incharge of preparing the salary bills for the said months fro the lower subordinate staff. She submitted that though salary bills were expected to be routed through PW-5,W/ASI Bimlesh Varun but the Applicant directly submitted the same to the Accountant and, as such, W/ASI Bimlesh had no opportunity to check the bill. It is further contended that W/HC Manesh Kumari informed the concerned authority about the irregularities detected by her which were alleged to have been committed by the Applicant. The delay could not be attributed to her for conspiring to transfer the allegation on the head of the Applicant. She also submitted that there are prosecution witnesses who have clearly stated that the Applicant prepared the pay bills of those 3 constables. Therefore, the Applicant was wholly and fully responsible for transfer of the amount of the salary bills of those 3 constables to his own account. She also submitted that the Applicant has admitted his guilt before SI Rajender Prasad, PW-6 and produce and deposited on his own the salaries of 3 constables drawn by him to the tune of Rs.31,437/-in the presence of PW-3 and PW-5. The same amount deposited on 2.8.2006 with the Accounts Branch was deposited in the government treasury dated 24.08.2006. She submits that there is a clear nexus established between the preparation of the Bill and transfer of the amount to the Applicants UTI Bank Account. She also highlighted that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have followed the laid down procedure very scrupulously. She also submitted that the principles of natural justice have been followed and the Applicant has been granted sufficient personal hearing by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. It is stated that the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the proved misconduct of illegality and irregularity in preparing salary bills and transferring the amount of 3 constables to the Applicants own Bank Account and thereafter the Applicant was intending to utilize the said amount for his own payments. In view of the proved misconduct in the inquiry, the competent authority has passed order imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Mrs. Renu George terms the same as proportionate to the proved misconduct. In view of the above arguments she submits that this is a fit case for dismissal of the OA.
5. We have raised during the hearing, the issue of prayer A which intends to quash the order dated 28.02.2008 where the Applicant was denied to participate in the interview for the post of Constable held in the year 2007 and requested the counsel for the Applicant to clarify how the prayer was relevant to the case. Shri Arun Bhardwaj submits that there are typographical errors in the prayer and the prayer is to quash and set aside the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.05.2007 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 01.05.2008. The counsel for the Respondents has no objection to admit the said typographical error. Thus, the said amendment to prayer A as orally stated by the counsel for the Applicant was allowed.
6. Having heard the rival contentions, we also perused the pleadings and the records produced before us. The Respondents counsel placed before us the following records:-
1. File No.744/RB relating to OA No.401/2009, Ex. Constable Vinod Kumar.
DE against Ct. Vinod Kumar No.744/RB (28990 114).
DE against Ct. Vinod Kumar No.744/RB Punishment Br/RB.
Appeal of Ex Const. Vinod Kumar 744/RB.
7. Before we delve into the issues raised during the hearing, we take extract of the charges framed against the Applicant which read as follows:-
CHARGE I, Inspector Nand Kishore, Enquiry Officer/RB charge you Constable Vinod Kumar, No.744/RB (PIS No.28990114) that on 31.7.2006 W/HC (Min.) Manesh Kumari, No.756/RB informed W/ASI Bimlesh Varun, No.953/D on telephone that on 28.7.2006 while she was making entry in the check sheet about salaries paid to the lower subordinates for the month of June & July, 2006 she had found that salaries of Constables Ravinder Kumar, No.349/RB, Gajraj Singh, No.183/RB and Kanhaiya Lal, No.312/RB have been prepared in this Unit despite issuance of their Last Pay Certificates.
On enquiry conducted by ACP/HQ(RB) it was revealed that Constable Ravinder Kumar No.349/RB was relieved on transfer from R. P. Bhawan to North-East District vide DD No.21, dated 1.4.2006 PPG Lines and subsequently his LPC (Last Pay Certificate) was also sent to DCP/North-East District vide No.703/Acctt./RB dated 6.6.2006 but you Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB- the dealing assistant of Account Branch/RB prepared the salary of Constable Ravinder Kumar No.349/RB worth Rs.10,462/- for the month of June, 2006 on the pay roll of R.P. Bhawan and sent it into your own UTI Bank Account No.120010100039969 by deleting the account No. of Constable Ravinder Kumar No.349/RB from the computer and putting your own UTI Bank account No. against the salary of the said Constable in the computer with malafide intention.
It has further been revealed that Constables Gaj Raj, No.183/RB and Kanhaiya Lal No.312/RB were also relieved from R.P. Bhawan to Traffic Unit vide DD Nos.62 dated 15.6.2006 & 54 dated 22.5.2006 PPG Lines and their LPCs were also sent to Traffic Unit vide No.815/Acctt./RB dated 7.7.2006 and 854/Acctt./RB dated 12.7.2006 respectively but you Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB again prepared their salaries for Rs.10,513/- and Rs.10,462/- respectively for the month of July, 2006 in R.P. Bhawan Unit and put the same into your own UTI Bank Account No.120010100039969 by putting your own account No. of UTI bank against the pay of these two Constables in the computer programming.
You Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB have also manipulated the salaries of these Constables by adding extra allowances and reducing deductions to enhance their salaries in the following manner:-
In the pay of Constable Gajraj No.183/RB for the month of July, 2006:-
Net salary as per LPC = Rs.7971/-
Manipulated = Rs.10513/-
Difference = Rs.2542/- Additions/Alterations made: Added washing allowance = Rs.20/- Added training allowance = Rs.872/- Stopped deduction of festival advance = Rs.150/- Reduced GPF deduction from 2000 to 500 = Rs.1500/- _____________ Total = Rs.2542/- In the pay of Constable Kanhaiya Lal, No.312/RB for the month of July 2006:- Net salary as per LPC = Rs.7942/- Manipulated = Rs.10462/- Difference = Rs.2520/- Additions/Alterations made: Added washing allowance = Rs.20/- Reduced GPF deduction from 3000 to 500 = Rs.2500/- ______________ Total = Rs.2520/-
In the pay of Constable Ravinder Kumar, No.349/RB for the month of June 2006:-
Net salary as per LPC = Rs.7962/-
Manipulated = Rs.10462/- Difference = Rs.2500/- Additions/Alterations made : Reduced GPF deduction from 3000 to 500 = Rs.2500/- ______________ Total = Rs.2500
You have also manipulated your own salary account for the months of June and July, 2006 by adding Rs.100/- more as transport allowance i.e. Rs.200/- in place of Rs.100/-.
Therefore, it became clear that you Constable Vinod Kumar, No.744/RB have managed to manipulate the salaries of these Constables as well as your own and drew the same willfully and knowingly from government treasury without any authorization, which is a grave misconduct on your part. The above said amount Rs.31437/- has also been recovered from you Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB on 2.8.2006 vide recovery memo prepared in the presence of witnesses and deposited in the government treasury vide T.R. No.22 dated 24.8.2006. For this serious misconduct you were placed under suspension vide DD No.57 dated 3.8.2006 and office order No.2945-62/HAP-DCP/RB, dated 4.8.2006.
The above mentioned uncalled for acts of manipulating salary statements of Constables Gajraj No.183/RB, Kanhaiya Lal No.312/RB and Ravinder Kumar No.349/RB and your own, misappropriating government money and diverting it in your account by you Constable Vinod Kumar, NO.744/RB (PIS No.28990114) amounted to grave misconduct, malafide intention, corrupt practices and dereliction in discharge of your official duties which rendered you liable punishment under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 as the approval of Joint Commissioner of Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan for initiation of a regular departmental enquiry against you Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB under the provisions of Rule 15 (2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 has also been obtained on 18.8.2006.
8. On the basis of the statements of PWs, DWs and the documents available, the pleas put forth by the defaulter Applicant, the Enquiry Officer analysed in detail the evidence received for and against the charges and held the charges as proved. The relevant part of the Enquiry Report is extracted below:
Howsoever, the pleas taken by the defaulter in his written defence statement are not sufficient to disprove the testimony of the presentation of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidences brought on record. The statement of DWs produced by defaulter in his defence does not any way undermine the prosecution evidence brought forth during this enquiry.
From the above facts, it has been established that Ct. Vinod Kumar No.744/RB while posted as dealing assistant in Account Branch/RB prepared the salary of Ct. Ravinder Kumar, 349/RB for the month of June, 2006 and the salaries of Ct. Gajraj Singh No.163/RB and Ct. Kanhaiya Lal No.312/RB for the month of July, 2006 on the salary bills of R.P. Bhawan and sent into his own UTI Bank account No.120010100039969 by putting his own UTI Bank account number against the pay of these three Constables in the computer programming with malafide intention.
Ct. Vinod Kumar No.744/RB has also manipulated the salaries of these Constables by reducing deductions to enhance their salaries. He also manipulated his own salary for the month of June, 2006 and July, 2006 by adding Rs.100/- more as transport allowance i.e. Rs.200/- in place of Rs.100/- which has been evident from his salary slips of June and July, 2006 enclosed with DE file and were proved during P.E. The amount of Rs.31,437/- which was sent into the UTI Bank account of Ct. Vinod Kumar by manipulating the salaries of these Constables were deposited in the account branch/RB by Ct. Vinod Kumar on 2.8.2006 and he also submitted his written statement (recovery memo) in the presence of witnesses. The said amount was further deposited in the govt. treasury vide TR Nos.22 dated 24.8.2006.
CONCLUSION From the analyses of the prosecution evidence and other documentary evidence brought on record during this enquiry, the charge against Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB is fully proved.
9. The Disciplinary Authority considered the full facts of the case, the Enquiry report, defence of the Applicant, heard him to check his grounds and arrived at the conclusion that continuation of the Applicant in the government service was prejudicial to the interest of the department and society at large. Therefore, after weighing the proportionality angle of the proved misconduct, vide order dated 18.05.2007 he imposed the penalty of Applicants dismissal from service with immediate effect and treated the suspension period from 3.8.2006 to the date of the order as period Not Spent on Duty for all intents and purposes. We reproduce below the relevant part of the order:
On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, from the statement of PW/DWs and on the basis of discussion above, it has been established that defaulter Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB has been guilty of charge of manipulating the salaries of Constables Ravinder Kumar No.349/RB for the month of June, 2006, Gajraj No.183/RB & Kanhaiya Lal No.312/RB for the month of July, 2006 by adding extra allowances and reducing deductions to enhance their salary amount as well as his own and drew the same willfully and knowingly from government treasury to his own account without any authorization despite the fact that their LPCs had already been issued to other Units, which is a grave misconduct on his part. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is conclusive evidence on record to hold the defaulter Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB responsible for his act of indulging in corrupt practices.
The act of manipulating salary statements of the employees who have been transferred to other units and his own, misappropriating government money and diverting it into his own account is a grave misconduct. This is a case where a protector of government treasury had indulged in an act of misappropriation of accounts and has abused the trust bestowed upon him. This is a situation where custodian of govt. money and his colleagues money has indulged in an act of misappropriation of money to his own account and this completely betrayed the trust of the department. Corruption is eating into the vitals of our society and if the guardians of public money indulge in such nefarious activities, it becomes all the more important to check and get rid of it forthwith.
If the defaulter Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB is allowed to continue in the police force after such an act of serious and reprehensible misconduct, it would be detrimental to the public interest as well as to the interest of the department and his colleagues because the corruption strikes at the very roots of civil society and erodes the faith of public at large in civil servants.
Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and in the entirety of situation, I have arrived at the conclusion that continuation of the defaulter Constable Vinod Kumar No.744/RB in the government service is prejudicial to the interest of the department and society at large. Therefore, I, S.B.S. Tyagi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan (Security), New Delhi, do hereby order to dismiss Constable (Exe.) Vinod Kumar No.744/RB from service with immediate effect. His suspension period from 3.8.2006 to date is also denied as period Not Spent on Duty for all intents and purposes.
10. The Applicant being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority submitted an appeal. The Appellate Authority went through the relevant records, and heard the Applicant on 08.04.2008. After due consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal, and taking into account whether the punishment imposed for the proved misconduct was proportionate or not, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was no reason to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly he upheld the punishment of dismissal from service and rejected the appeal vide his order dated 1.5.2008 (Annexure-A2).
11. The above details on the case clearly bring out the following basic undisputed and admitted facts relating to the misconduct committed in the case:
Salary Bill of Constable Gajraj was prepared for the month of July, 2006, despite the fact that he was already transferred and LPC issued.
Though as per LPC Shri Gajrajs net salary was Rs.7971, the bill prepared for July indicated Rs.10513, an inflated amount of Rs.2542 [GPF deduction reduced from Rs.2000 to Rs.500 (Rs.1500), No deduction of festival allowance (Rs.150), addition of training allowance (Rs.872) and addition of washing allowance (Rs.20)] In case of Constable Ravinder Kumar, who was already transferred and LPC issued, the salary bill was prepared for the month of June, 2006.
As per the LPC, the net salary of Ravinder Kumar was Rs.7962, but the salary bill for June 2006 for Ravinder Kumar was prepared for Rs.10462; and increase of Rs.2500 by reducing the contribution to GPF from Rs.3000 to Rs.500.
Insofar as the salary bill for July 2006 for Constable Kanhaiya Lal is concerned, the same was prepared despite his transfer and release of LPC.
The LPC of Shri Kanhaiya Lal revealed the net salary as Rs.7942 but the bill for July 2006 was for Rs.10462-a difference of Rs.2520 by (a) addition of Rs.20 as washing allowance and (b) reduction of GPF deduction from Rs.3000 to Rs.500.
It is also a fact that the Applicants salary bill for June and July 2006 the transport allowance per month was enhanced from Rs.100 to Rs.200. Thus, additional payment was Rs.200.
The total amount raised in those 3 relevant salary bills is Rs.31437 (Rs.10513+Rs.10462+Rs.10462), which were credited to the Applicants UTI Bank Account No.120010100039969 held at Khan Market Branch, Delhi.
The Applicant withdrew Rs.31437 from his account and voluntarily deposited in the Account Branch of Rashtrapati Bhawan on 2.8.2006, which, later on 24.8.2006 was deposited in the Government treasury.
12. The above undisputed facts bring to our notice that, the inflated salary bills were prepared, passed and the amount of Rs.31,437/- were transferred to an account in the UTI Bank which stood in the name of the Applicant. The questions arise-who prepared the bills including the entry of UTI Bank Account Number and how was the amount transferred not once but on more number of occasions during that period. In this regard, the onus is with the Respondents to prove the nexus. There is no doubt that the Applicant was the beneficiary of that transfer of funds. The bank account of the Applicant is the link between the misconduct and the Applicant. We would analyse below the nexus between the Applicant and transfer of funds to his bank account.
13. It is also noted that the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) Report including the statements recorded during the PE have not been the part of the regular departmental enquiry, hence, non supply of the same to the Applicant has not impinged in any manner the principles of natural justice. Our perusal of records revealed that the work distribution of Accounts Branch during June and July 2006 was that (i) W/HC (Min.) Manesh Kumari was dealing with the functional matters of lower subordinate and their salaries and (ii) the Applicant was assisting W/HC (Min.) Manesh Kumari and as she was in the advance stage of pregnancy, major chunk of job of salary bill preparation was performed by the Applicant.
14. The main issue is who was preparing the salary bill of the lower subordinate in Rashtrapati Bhawan? We examined the Enquiry report and the documents and files placed before us. The evidence of PW-7 (HC Mahesh Kumari) reveals in her statement that the salary bill of lower subordinates for the months of June and July, 2006 were prepared by Applicant when she was working for Diary and Despatch of Account Branch in Rashtrapati Bhawan. From the records produced by the Respondents we find that the Applicant was working on the seat of preparation of salary bill of lower subordinates independently. Further, it is found from the deposition of PW -1 (SI Daya Ram, the then Accountant) that as per his directions the salary bills for the month of June and July, 2006 were prepared by the Applicant himself. From the statement of PW-5 (W/ASI Bimlesh) it is noticed that the salary bill of lower subordinate was not routed through her but were put up to the Accountant directly by the Applicant. The Enquiry report brings to the light through the evidence rendered by PWs-1,6 and 7 that the the Applicant has prepared the salary bills of Constable Ravinder Kumar No.349/RB for the month of June, 2006 and Gajraj Singh, and Kanhaiya Lal for the month of July, 2006 while they were transferred to other Districts/Units and sent the amount into his own UTI Bank Account. He has not only sent the salaries of these three constables into his UTI Bank Account but also manipulated their salaries by adding extra allowances and reducing deductions to enhance their salaries. Thus, it is clear from the evidence that the Applicant was responsible for the preparation of salary bills which inter alia included the insertion of his bank account number.
15. Further, initially the Applicant himself admitted his guilt before PW-6 (SI Rajinder Prasad) and deposited Rs.31,437/- in presence of PW-3 and PW-5 on 2.8.2006. We also find from the deposition of PW-5 [W/ASI Bimlesh No.953/D] that on 31.7.2006 W/HC Manesh Kumari had informed her on telephone that while she was making entry in the check sheet about the salaries, she found that the pay of Constable Ravinder Kumar, Gajraj and Kanhaiya Lal were prepared while they had been transferred to other Districts/Units. She brought this to the notice of the Accountant who asked her to check the record and during the checking she found that in spite of their LPCs being issued, their salaries were prepared in the Unit and drawn in the UTI Bank Account No.120010100039969 pertaining to the Applicant. The salaries of these three Constables were also manipulated by adding extra allowances and reducing deductions to enhance the cash. The said amount of Rs.31,437/- was returned by him in her presence. One wonders who else other than the Applicant knows the Applicants bank account in UTI Bank. If the Applicant was in charge of the salary bills preparation, the Bank account would have been prepared and inserted by him.
16. In view of the documentary evidence well corroborated by the oral evidence in the enquiry, we note that the Disciplinary Authority has properly taken into consideration the act of manipulating salary statements of the employees who have been transferred to other units and his own, misappropriating government money and diverting the said amount to his own account which is no doubt a grave misconduct on the part of the Applicant. In the language of the Disciplinary Authority, the Applicant- a protector of government treasury had indulged in an act of misappropriation of accounts and has abused the trust bestowed upon him and concludes that if the Applicant is allowed to continue in the police force after such an act of serious and reprehensible misconduct, it would be detrimental to the public interest as well as to the interest of the department and his colleagues because the corruption strikes at the very roots of civil society and erodes the faith of public at large in civil servants. We very strongly endorse such a view and stand taken by the Disciplinary Authority.
17. We have gone through the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, we have thoroughly examined the Enquiry Officers report and find that there is no legal and procedural infirmity. Further, the principles of natural justice have been followed by the said authorities. Looking from the angle of proportionality, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed on the Applicant is proportionate to the proved misconduct. In the result, the Applicant has not established his case calling for our interference. Thus, we uphold the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities.
18. Finding no merits in the Original Application, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Shankar Raju) Member (A) Member (J) /rk/