Delhi District Court
Cc No. 532226/16 Cbi vs . Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. ... on 17 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI
CC No. 532226/16
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
Gurmeet Singh Matharoo
Order on Charge
1.The allegations raised by prosecution in this case are pertaining to three main issues:-
A. Deputation of Sh. G.S. Matharoo, Under Secretary (in Situ) from MHA to MCD as ADC/Joint A&C. B. Absorption of Sh. G.S. Matharoo in MCD as Secretary to the Commissioner.
C. Upgradation of the scale of Secretary to Commissioner in pay scale of Rs. 14,000/- to Rs.
18,300/-.
2. In this case a closure report was filed on 30.06.2009. A protest petition was filed by Sh. S.K. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner, MCD praying to reject the final closure report. Sh. Pitamber Dutt, Ld. Spl. Judge vide order dated 28.08.2015 accepted the protest petition and rejected the closure report. After conducting further investigation CBI has decided to charge sheet accused for the commission of offence u/s 420/468/471 and section 13(2) R/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
3. Brief history of the case is that accused was working as Section Officer in MHA in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500/- - Rs. 8,000/- and was given a temporary promotion as Under CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 1/20 Secretary (in situ) by Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Govt. of India in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/-. MHA vide its order dated 20.08.1999, relating to in- situ promotion, has provided that the appointment against the upgraded post of Under Secretary will not entitle the officer to claim any regular appointment as Under Secretary or seniority in the grade. This order further mentioned that the appointment to the post of Under Secretary was on personal/in-situ basis. On 24.08.2001 he applied for the post of Addl. Dy. Commissioner (ADC)/Joint Assessor and Collector (Jt. A&C) in MCD on deputation basis. In advance copy of this application submitted to Commissioner, MCD he mentioned his pay scale as Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/- and mentioned his post as Under Secretary instead of Under Secretary (in-situ). His application was processed and it was suggested that the vigilance clearance report, integrity report and ACRs of this accused for the last 5 years may be called from MHA for considering his appointment as ADC in MCD. After approval of this note, a letter was sent on 04.09.2001 by MCD to MHA requesting to forward the name of the accused.
4. The correspondence received from MCD was processed and put up by Ms. L.P. Srivastava, Section Officer of MHA on 05.09.2001 to Sh. P.V. Shivaraman, Under Secretary, MHA mentioning that "Sh. Matharoo has not mentioned in his application that he is Under Secretary (in-situ)". In accordance with DoPT's Office Memorandum (OM) dated 26.12.2000, the CSS officers who had been given in-situ up-gradation can CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 2/20 proceed on deputation only with reference to the pay scale of the grade held by them on regular basis. Sh. P.V. Shivaraman, Under Secretary has suggested that the fact mentioned by Section Officer should be brought to the notice of MCD so that they can examine eligibility of accused for the post. However, Director (Administration & Vigilance), MHA wrote that the question for fixation of pay will arise only in the event of the selection of accused by MCD and in case accused is selected for the post, MCD can be informed about his substantive pay and the pay scale on which he is presently working. This note was approved by Sh. Yashwant Raj, then JS (A&PG), MHA on the same day.
5. DoPT vide its letter dated 10.06.2008 has clarified that the Section Officer who had been granted in-situ promotion, were not a Group A officer.
6. As per DoPT's OM dated 09.08.2001, the cadre clearance in respect of Section Officers of CSS who had been upgraded as Under Secretary on in-situ basis was required to be given by DoPT. Prior to this circular, the cadre clearance for these officers, regarding applications for deputation was given by MHA. The case of administrative approval/cadre clearance of accused was dealt with by MHA on 05.09.2001 but the officials did not refer the issue to DoPT for cadre clearance as required under said OM. Accordingly, the ACRs, integrity certificate and vigilance clearance report were forwarded by MHA to MCD, same were processed in MCD and the appointment of accused was proposed to the post of ADC/A&C CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 3/20 in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/- for a period of one year. The same was approved by the then Commissioner on 10.09.2001.
7. As per the prevalent Recruitment Rules, the post of ADC in MCD on deputation basis could be filled up by officers of IAS, Central Services Group-A and States Civil Services Class-I, drawing a minimum of Rs. 1,200/- per month. But at that time pay scale of ADC was Rs. 1,200-50-1300-1600. The minimum salary of Rs. 1,200/- was a prerequisite for being considered for appointment as ADC/Jt. A&C. The corresponding pay scale during the relevant period was revised. The minimum pay scale required for deputation on this post was Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/-, however, accused was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 10,650/-. The Head Clerk (AP)-I, MCD, Sh. S.K. Verma, Administrative Officer and Sh. S.C. Kohli, Director (Personnel) did not bring this fact to the notice of the senior officers while recommending the approval for appointment of the accused in MCD. The concerned MHA officials did not provide the salary particulars of accused as it had not been asked for.
8. Deputation of accused was approved by MCD, MHA issued a relieving order on 24.09.2001 mentioning that services of accused Under Secretary (in-situ) are placed at the disposal of MCD. A copy of said letter was marked to Sh. S.C. Kohli, Director (Personnel), MCD as well as to accused. Accused was directed to report to Sh. S.C. Kohli upon his relieving from MHA. These copies of the relieving order were delivered by despatch rider Sh. Intaj Ahmed same day in MHA on 24.09.2001.
CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 4/20Accused submitted his joining report in MCD on 26.09.2001. In his joining report to Commissioner, MCD accused attached photocopy of the relieving order addressed to Sh. S.C. Kohli. In another joining report dated 26.09.2001 addressed to Director (Personnel), he attached another copy of the same. In both these copies of relieving order submitted by accused the word "in-situ" is missing. A gap after Under Secretary clearly reveals that the word "in-situ" has been obliterated. A copy of this document was recovered during the house search of accused in RC No. EOU-I-2005-A-0005.
9. Accused was not eligible for absorption in MCD as per Recruitment Rules because he was neither holding analogous post on regular basis in his parent cadre i.e. MHA, nor had he completed 5 years of services in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/-. However, the proposal for his absorption was moved by Ms. Charu Sharma, UDC, MCD on 13.10.2003 and the same was approved by Sh. Rakesh Mehta, the then Commissioner, MCD on 14.10.2003. Accordingly, NOC was requested by MCD from MHA. MHA issued NOC on 31.10.2003 after obtaining due approval from the competent authority. This NOC again mentioned designation of accused as Under Secretary (in-situ). The word "Mathroo" has also been altered to "Matharoo" at two places in NOC. Sh. P.K. Rawat, the then Assistant, MHA had received the original copy of this NOC from MHA and handed over the same to accused same day at his office. As per Sh. P.K. Rawat letter "a" was inserted by accused in his presence in "Mathroo". Accused had taken out white fluid CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 5/20 from the drawer and asked him to leave. On the basis of this NOC, order for absorption of accused was issued by MCD.
10. Up-gradation of the post of Secretary to the Commissioner from the pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/- to Rs. 14,300/- - Rs. 18,300/- was approved by the MCD on 12.07.2004. However, the same has not been given effect till date and no benefit of this up-gradation has been given to the accused. This up-gradation was for the particular post and not for the accused.
11. Investigation has revealed that other officials / parties were not found involved in conspiracy with accused, however, for act of negligence and lapses on the part of some officials, CBI has referred the matter to the concerned department for taking appropriate departmental action. The alteration / obliteration / erasing in the original documents is nothing but an act of forgery which can be safely attributed to the accused. His intention from the very inception was dishonest and his acts were fraudulent.
12. By abusing his official position, he got himself posted in MCD and got absorption subsequently by practicing fraud. He is the ultimate beneficiary of the said relieving order and NOC on the basis of which he succeeded to achieve his evil design. Accused had conscious knowledge that he was not entitled for the said post / job but he dishonestly concealed the true facts for obtaining wrongful benefits. In the background of these facts, CBI filed charge sheet against him u/s 420/468/471 IPC & section 13(2) R/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 6/2013. Heard arguments of Sh. Anil Tanwar, Ld. PP, CBI and Sh. Anil Grover, Ld. Counsel for accused. Ld. Counsel for accused has also filed written submission to support his contentions.
14. Ld. PP, CBI has submitted that though earlier closure report was filed by CBI, but in this fresh charge sheet there is sufficient evidence against the accused for the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. It is stated that accused was working as Section Officer in MHA and he was given temporary promotion as Under Secretary (in-situ), whereas as per the prevalent Recruitment Rules, the post of ADC in MCD on deputation basis could be filled up by officers of IAS, Central Services Group-A and States Civil Services Class-I, drawing a minimum of Rs. 1,200/-. It is stated that accused was not fulfilling these requirements, he being Under Secretary (in-situ) was not eligible for this post but he forged the documents and accordingly cheated the MCD. It is stated that sufficient evidence is there to establish prima facie case against the accused. It is stated that accused by abusing his official position by practicing fraud got permanent absorption in MCD. He manipulated and forged the relieving order and NOC from MHA on the basis of which he succeeded to achieve his evil design.
15. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that there is no material at all on record against the accused, even prima facie, to reach yardstick of grave suspicion which is minimum condition precedent to frame the charges. It has been staed that earlier on the basis of same evidence CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 7/20 prosecution has filed cancellation report. It is stated that accused was promoted against an upgraded post from Section Officer to Under Secretary (in-situ) in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/- on 20.08.1999 while he was working with MHA. As per classification of post under the Central Government, a post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs. 13,500/- is classified as group A after 20.04.1998. It is further stated that accused being in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/- was falling in the classification of group A. It is further stated that other requirement to appoint accused on deputation as ADC/Jt. A&C is that he should have been drawing salary of Rs. 1,200/-. It is stated that as per D-31 the minimum pay of Rs. 1,200/- under Recruitment Rules was not revised to Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/- at the relevant time but to Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/- which accused was holding. Hence, contention of CBI is falsified by its own records. It is stated that there is absolutely no evidence on record if accused obliterated the word 'in-situ' by placing the fluid on the relieving order dated 24.09.2001 at the time of seeking deputation. It is stated that as far as allegations of not taking cadre clearance from DoPT, accused has no role to play and the concerned persons were not aware with the said circular of DoPT OM dated 09.08.2001. Regarding the allegations that accused was not eligible for absorption in MCD as per Recruitment Rules since he was not holding analogous post on regular basis nor he has completed five years of services in pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/-, Ld. Counsel CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 8/20 for accused has submitted that MCD has sought opinion from Chief Legal Officer and on his recommendation further opinion of Sh. Mohan Prasaran, ASG was sought. Sh. Prasaran has opined that appointment of accused was in confirmation with the provisions of section 92 of DMC Act. It is stated that CBI has failed to establish if accused committed any forgery or misused his official position and got him absorbed in MCD. It is stated that regarding obliteration of word 'in-situ' on NOC issued by MHA dated 31.10.2003, prosecution has relied upon the statement of witness Sh. P.K. Rawat but he has only stated that he had only seen accused taking white fluid from the drawer and he did not notice what accused did with that fluid. It is stated that accused had not competed five years of services in the requisite grade before being absorbed in the post of Secretary to the Commissioner, MCD and this fact was well within the knowledge of every one who has processed his absorption in MCD. It is stated that this was done entirely on the basis of merit and outstanding performance of accused which is evident from assessment sent by MHA to MCD. Regarding third allegations of up-gradation of the scale of Secretary to Commissioner in pay scale of Rs. 14,000/- - Rs. 18,300/-. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that up-gradation was for the post not for accused and moreover, no benefit of the same was ever given to the accused. In support of his submission, Ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgments:-
1. Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. CBI, 2008 Crl. L.J. 4396 CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 9/20
2. Samadhan Dhudaka Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (1) ACR 870 (SC)
3. Neeraj Gupta & Ors. Vs. CBI, 2007 (96) DRJ 380
4. G.D. Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1990 (0) MPLJ 39
5. Ravishanker Keshavji Dave Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 Guj 293
6. R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 2045
7. C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 VAD (SC) 445
8. Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2010 (1) ACR 281 (SC)
9. Rita Handa Vs. CBI, 152 (2008) DLT 248
10. B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., 2014 (2) ACR 1215 (SC)
16. At the stage of framing of charge, court is not required to minutely sift and weigh the prosecution evidence. The law on this point has been exhaustively discussed by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC wherein Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused had been made out.CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 10/20
2) Whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing as charge and proceeding with the trial.
3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.
By and large, however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the Prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial".
17. In Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. CBI (Supra), the court has observed that if two views are equally possible and Judge is satisfied that evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge.
18. In Neeraj Gupta & Ors. Vs. CBI (Supra), the court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge court is to CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 11/20 assess the overall weight of the evidence presented before it and reasonably infer whether grave suspicion exists that the accused, prima facie committed offence alleged. It is settled law that if two views are possible the one favouring the accused is to be preferred.
19. Regarding deputation of accused from MHA to MCD as ADC / Joint A&C the allegation against him is that he was not holding the scale i.e. Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/- for the deputation post and he deliberately did not mention his current designation as Under Secretary (in-situ). It is alleged that he has mentioned his designation only as Under Secretary. It is further alleged that as per the prevalent Recruitment Rules, the post of ADC in MCD could be filled up only by Central Services Group-A and States Civil Services Class-I, drawing a minimum of Rs. 1,200/- per month.
20. In his application accused has mentioned his pay scale as Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/-. The contention raised on behalf of accused is that as per the Standard Scales of Pay (First to Fifth Pay Commissions) the pay scale of Rs. 1,200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 onwards was revised to Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/- and accordingly the pay scale on which accused was working was similar to pay scale being drawn by him for deputation post. However, as per office order no. 202 dated 04.11.1985 issued by Sh. B.S. Banerjee, Director (Personnel) the corporation vide its resolution no. 518 dated 15.10.1985 has approved revision of pay scale of the post of Addl. Deputy Commissioner from Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1600-EB-60-1900-100-2000 to Rs.
CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 12/201500-60-1800-100-1200. As per Standard Scales of Pay (First to Fifth Pay Commissions) the revised pay scale for the post of ADC in MCD was Rs. 1200--375-16500. The contention raised on behalf of accused is that it was internal resolution of the MCD but MCD did not amend Recruitment Rules requiring the incumbent for post of ADC/Jt. AC to hold pay scale of Rs. 1500- 60-1800-100-2000. It has been further stated that even in the revised Recruitment Rules of 2002 the pay scale for this post is prescribed as Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/- or equivalent in the parent cadre / department. Though copy of Recruitment Rules of 1983 are filed by the accused but there is no copy of Recruitment Rules of 2002 for the post of ADC/Jt.AC MCD. Whether the internal resolution dated 04.11.1985 of MCD has revised the scale of ADC/Jt.AC or pay scale for this post was governed by Recruitment Rules of 1983, is a triable issue. Accordingly,prima facie evidence is there that at the time of submitting application for seeking deputation, accused was on lower pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/-.
21. Other contentions raised on behalf of accused is that as per classification of post under the Central Government, a post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs. 13,500/- is classified as group A after 20.04.1998. In support of his contention that accused was classified as group B (Gazetted), the prosecution has relied upon a letter dated 11.06.2008 from Sh. Shaukat Ali, Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DoPT), wherein it is mentioned that the post of Section Officer CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 13/20 of the CSS has been classified as group B (Gazetted) though the incumbents have been given the pay scale of Rs. 8,000/- - Rs. 13,500/- after completion of four years of regular service in that grade as such, the Section Officers who had been granted in-situ promotion were not a group A officer in the light of the aforesaid decision. On behalf of accused it has been stated that this letter only prescribes that Section Officer who has been granted in-situ promotion was not a group A officer and it is not talking about Under Secretary (in-situ). This letter is in reference to clarification sought on the basis of OM No. 11012/5/2000- Estt.A dated 10.05.2001. What was OM dated 10.05.2001 talking about and in context to that how the language of this letter has to be interpreted, again is a triable issue and it is not possible to give any finding on it now.
22. From the evidence on record it is apparent that post of ADC was classified as group A and was having a pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/-. But prima facie, it appears that accused was not fulfilling either of the two criteria but he applied for the post of ADC in MCD on deputation basis.
23. Other allegation against accused is that he deliberately concealed that he is Under Secretary (in-situ) by mentioning his designation as Under Secretary in his application. The point to be considered is if it was mandatory for the accused to mention his designation as Under Secretary (in-situ) or he could have mentioned his designation as Under Secretary, as claimed by accused. As per the letter dated 14.10.2008 written by Sh. Shaukat Ali, Under Secretary, DOPT to DSP, CBI, it is CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 14/20 mentioned that while submitting application for deputation to ex cadre post, a government servant is required to furnish the factual information about the present post held by him to enable the borrowing authority to decide the eligibility of the officer for the post in question. While doing correspondence with other Ministry/Department/Organization an Under Secretary is not required to disclose his exact status namely in-situ, ad-hoc, regular etc. but only write his designation.
24. From the documents discussed above, prima facie it stands established that when accused submitted his application on 24.08.2001 for deputation with MCD, he was neither having pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/- nor the post of Under Secretary (in-situ), which he was holding at the relevant time, was classified as group A post. Merely submission of this application by accused with MCD for deputation do not constitute any offence. CBI has alleged that be being senior official in the MHA has manipulated the concerned officials in MHA and MCD dealing with the files concerning his deputation.
25. As per the charge sheet application dated 24.08.2001 of accused was processed in MCD and letter was sent on 04.09.2001 to MHA requesting to forward the name of the accused. In MHA while dealing with the correspondence received from MCD the issue was discussed in reference to DOPT's office memorandum dated 26.12.2000 that CSS Officers who had been given in-situ up-gradation can proceed on deputation only with reference to the pay scale of the grade held by him on regular basis but Director (Administration & CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 15/20 Vigilance) intervened writing that the question for fixation for pay will arise only in the event of selection of accused by MCD. This note was even approved by then Joint Secretary (A&PG) same day.
26. The question arises why in compliance of the DoPT OM dated 26.12.2000 the issue regarding pay scale of accused was not brought to the knowledge of MCD. Can it be said that accused managed all these officials who have dealt with this correspondence received from MCD, no conclusion can be drawn at this stage, but prima facie strong doubt appears against accused,as he being interested to come on deputation with MCD.
27. Other allegation against the accused is that as per DoPT's OM dated 09.08.2001 the cadre clearance in respect of Section Officers of CSS who had been up-graded as Under Secretary on in-situ basis was required to be given by DoPT, but no such mandatory cadre clearance was taken by MHA. No doubt DoPT's OM dated 09.08.2001 mandates that cadre clearance is required when Section Officers who have been given in-situ promotion / personal up-gradation is applying for deputation. Why no cadre clearance was taken by MHA is lying explained from the letter of Sh. Arvind Mukherjee, Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 04.03.2008. He has mentioned that as per DoPT's OM dated 26.12.2000 while processing application of accused for deputation to MCD cadre clearance was not required. Subsequent OM dated 09.08.2001 of DoPT, as per which cadre CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 16/20 clearance in respect of Under Secretary in-situ is to be obtained could not be taken into consideration as Ad V Section (Previously Ad 1(c) Section) which processed the case for deputation of accused did not possess these instructions in the MHA at that point of time as mentioned in the records.
28. As per record while processing deputation of accused MHA issued a relieving order dated 24.09.2001 mentioning that services of accused Under Secretary (in-situ) are placed at the disposal of MCD. A copy of this letter was marked to Sh. S.C. Kohli, Director (Personnel), MCD as well as to accused.
29. As per PW Sh. Imtiaz Ahmed, he was very close to accused, he has received two copies of the orders dated 24.09.2001 and had handed over the same to accused in his chamber in NE Division of MHA. As per record accused has submitted joining report to Commissioner, MCD dated 26.09.2001 and Director (Personnel), MCD on 28.09.2001 along with copy of the office order dated 24.09.2001 of MHA. In both these copies of the office orders the designation of the accused is mentioned as Under Secretary. The words "in-situ" are missing and a gap after Under Secretary clearly reveals that the word "in-situ" has been obliterated.
30. The other allegation against the accused is his absorption in MCD as Secretary to the Commissioner. As per the case of the prosecution accused was not eligible for absorption in MCD as per recruitment rules because he was neither holding analogous post on regular basis in MHA nor had he completed 5 years of service in the pay scale of CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 17/20 Rs. 10,000/- - Rs. 15,200/-. It is admitted case of prosecution that absorption of accused in MCD was approved by Sh. Rakesh Mehta then Commissioner, MCD on 14.10.2003.
31. After approval of proposal for absorption of accused the Commissioner, MCD, NOC was requested by MCD from MHA. As per record MHA issued NOC on 31.10.2003 after obtaining due approval from competent authority. The original copy of this NOC dated 31.10.2003 issued by Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar, Under Secretary to the Government of India mentions his designation as Under Secretary (in-situ) with MHA. As per the allegations Sh. P.K. Rawat, then Assistant in MHA had received the original copy of NOC and handed over the same to accused same day in his office. The NOC which was submitted with the MCD was containing his designation mentioned at two places as Under Secretary and on the space thereafter fluid has been put. The report of GEQD, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Kolkata opines that on the NOC submitted with MCD at both the points, the obliterated typescripts when deciphered read as (in_situ).
32. As per the prosecution case Sh. P.K. Rawat the then Assistant, MHA had received the original copy of this NOC from MHA and handed over the same to accused same day in his office. Sh. P.K. Rawat in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he had received letter dated 31.10.2003 addressed to MCD conveying no objection of MHA to the absorption of accused as Secretary of the Commissioner, MCD. He has further stated that he had received this letter also on behalf of CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 18/20 accused on the instructions of Sh. Yashwant Raj, then Joint Secretary (Admn.), MHA. He had handed over this letter same day at about 04:30 PM to accused in a sealed / stapled cover in his chamber in the office of Commissioner, MCD. Accused immediately opened the letter and was excited. He told that "Mere Naam Mein 'a' Lagana Bhool Gye". Then accused took his pen and added small 'a' in his name. He also saw accused picking up white fluid from his office table but he did not notice what accused did with that fluid as after having tea he left the said office for his residence.
33. It was on the basis of NOC, order for absorption of accused was issued by MCD. No doubt as per the documents discussed above on the NOC submitted with MCD white fluid has been put on two places where words 'in-situ' was mentioned after designation of the accused.
34. In view of the afore discussed reasons, prima facie from the statements of PW Sh. Imtiaz Ahmed and PW Sh. P.K. Rawat it appears that it was nobody other than accused, being beneficiary, who has obliterated the word "in-situ" on the relieving order dated 24.09.2001 and NOC dated 31.10.2003. It was on the basis of these two documents accused was taken on deputation and permanently absorbed in the cadre by MCD. Prima facie evidence is also there that accused was not holding the pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/- required for the deputation post and he was also not from group A service.
35. In view of the aforementioned reasons, prima facie evidence is also there that accused has cheated the MCD firstly CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 19/20 at the time of proceeding on deputation and then during his absorption in MCD, he forged relieving order dated 24.09.2001 and NOC dated 31.10.2003 given by MHA and used the forged copies as genuine in getting his deputation cleared and getting permanently absorbed in MCD. Prima facie evidence is also there that while on deputation he started drawing higher scale of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 16,500/-. Prima facie evidence is also there that he abused his position as a public servant in getting the relieving order dated 24.09.2001 and NOC dated 31.10.2003 delivered by Sh. Imtiaz Ahmed and Sh. P.K. Rawat (both from MHA) to him and for drawing pecuniary advantage he used these documents by obliterating words in-situ. Accordingly, accused be charged for these offences as defined under sections 420/468/471 and section 13(2) R/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on 17th January, 2017 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 532226/16 CBI Vs. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo & Ors. Page No. 20/20