Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs U O I (Ministry Of Human )Ors on 9 January, 2013
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9148/2012
Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 9/1/2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA
Mr. NS Chouhan, for petitioner.
Instant petition has been filed assailing order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dt. 29.3.2011 rejecting the original application of the petitioner who was charge sheeted for embezzlement of sum of Rs. 3,75,455/- & 72,782/- in two separate different allegations and the enquiry officer found both of charges no. 1 & 2 proved against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority after affording opportunity of hearing & providing him copy of enquiry report and taking note of written explanation held him guilty and punished with penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt. 24.1.2006 against which the petitioner preferred departmental appeal and that came to be rejected by the appellate authority assigning detailed reasons vide order dt. 17.10.2006 and on original application came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, the bone of contention was that the application which was submitted before the enquiry officer calling upon certain witnesses & the documents to be summoned on his behalf was partly disallowed and that has caused prejudice to him in submitting his proper defence with the enquiry officer and further submitted that the observation which was made by the enquiry officer in his report shows that he was biased & despite objection being raised it was overlooked by the disciplinary authority and further submitted that the PrincipalRB Meena & employee GK Raina are the persons who are directly responsible for alleged embezzlement but they were never charge sheeted and merely because he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- in no manner could be considered to be an acceptance of his guilt, under these facts & circumstances, the charges proved against him and consequential penalty inflicted of dismissal from service was not legally sustainable.
Counsel further urged that even if the charge stands proved, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him is shockingly disproportionate & at least to that extent it requires interference.
Learned Tribunal examined all the submissions made in detail & on his application submitted for list of witnesses and documents categorically observed that such of the witnesses which are denied were not having relevance to the charge leveled and such of the witnesses who have bearing on the charge were permitted to participate in the enquiry proceedings and their statements were recorded and at the same time such of the documents which were relied upon by the delinquent, permission was granted to him and that has also been taken note by the enquiry officer. As regards, other guilty persons like GK Raina & GK Raina suffice to say that if they were also responsible have to be charge sheeted but the fact still remains that he would not be absolved from his own act of committing embezzlement of public money and is not be at liberty to take a plea of innocence in their absence, at the same time, depositing of money to that extent may not be considered as acceptance of his guilt but certainly can be looked into while examining in totality of the charge leveled against the delinquent and as regards the last submission made of disproportionate punishment we are sorry to say that in a matter like such where there is allegation of embezzlement and charge stands proved, in our view, the only punishment which could be inflicted is of dismissal from service and that has rightly been inflicted by the disciplinary authority.
The learned tribunal examined the submissions made in detail and we do not find any apparent error in the order of the learned Tribunal which requires interference of this Court in limited scope of judicial review u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the writ petition is wholly bereft of merit and accordingly dismissed.
[JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA],J. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. DSR
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S