Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

10. Thereafter accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating material in evidence was put to the accused. Accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused further stated that his house was raided but no incriminating material was seized by the CBI; the Paying Officer used to report the Accounts Officer and thereafter the Check Roll Clerk who used to report; the check roll was put up before the Office Superintendent two days before the pay disbursement along with the change details; the office superintendent had sufficient time to pick up and check the random checking of all the check rolls. Accused admitted that the cash was given to the disbursing officer in a bag for disbursement purpose; then the Disbursing Officer along with two Assistants and the Dealing Clerk were reaching at the counter; the signatures of the individuals were taken in the presence of all the concerned persons; the details were prepared on the next day of disbursement of the salary while reconciliation of the cash; the name of the Paying Officer detailed for the disbursement of the salary and also RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 8/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani the Officer for disbursement of salary to the absentee employees were published in the Daily Order Part­I of the pay disbursement and the officer could be the same or different also. Accused admitted that he was given the work of diary dispatch and later of preparing check roll; the print out of the cumulative page totals was computer generated. Accused stated that he had never worked under Mr. S.R. Aggarwal. Accused stated that the check roll was never put up before Accounts Officer twice for his signing; there was no time prescribed for audit of the check roll; even though he (accused) was from the technical side, he had been given the duty for clerical work as per the directions of the Commandant, 505 Army Base Workshop. Accused stated that all the print out of all the heads were computer generated; there was no variation in any individuals net and gross salary in the check roll. Accused stated that his date of joining was 28/07/1997. Accused admitted that the ticket number of PW7 Manoj Chaurasia was 4829. Accused stated that no computer classes were held or any type of computer education was given by the institute namely Baba Saheb Ambedkar Polytechnic and he has no knowledge about Ex PW8/B and Ex PW18/E. Accused admitted that ticket number of Ms. Anupama Rani was in check roll no. XII and later to check roll no. XI but he did not know when her name was shifted to check roll no. V; the names of the disbursement officers, Paying Clerk and the location of the pay distribution was known on publication of the Daily Order Part­I which was published 2/3 days prior to the date of disbursement of pay; the disbursement of the salary to the lady RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 9/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani employees was done early and never at the end; the salary of PW10 Ms. Sunita Kumari was deposited with the cashier as an absentee employee for the month of May 2000 to August 2000 and the salary for the month of September 2000 was collected by her (PW10) personally. Accused further stated that the check roll could be signed by the Paying officer and Senior Charge­man on the next date of pay disbursement; identifying the individual was the job of the Senior Charge­man (identifier and witness) and the Paying Officers. Accused stated that they had been given the diploma in lieu of the fee which the institute had already taken from them for part time diploma in Mechanical Engineering; no classes for computer course were held or any kind of training theoretical or practical was given by the institute; the Court of Inquiry was ordered vide convening order dated 15/06/2001 under Army Rule 180 which was not applicable to the Central Government, Defence Civilian employee; the whole court of inquiry was conducted in violation of Army Rule 180. Accused stated that the marking of absentee employees on the check roll was done on the part of Paying Officer as per Daily Order Part I. Accused stated that when he was handed over the charge, Sh Virender Singh had already been posted out of the computer section. Accused stated that the change details was generated by the computer automatically but he did not know if the payment voucher was also known as grand summary. Accused stated that the data of Pencil Recovery was directly fed on the computer by the Cashier or the Society Member; it was never prepared by the Check Roll Clerk; the date of RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 10/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani appointment of PW23 Sh Hari Prakash Arya was 17/01/1998; Sh Hari Prakash Arya was specially detailed in the computer section for feeding the data and taking the print out from the computer of all the check rolls and pay bills. Accused stated that so long as he remained posted in 505, Army Base Workshop, PW30 Sh Murli Ram had not joined; the payment sheets were unaudited documents and were kept in the custody of the Office Superintendent after the audit was done. Accused stated that during his tenure of service in 505, Army Base Workshop, Mr. Sunil Rai Aggarwal was not the Account Officer. Accused stated that the GEQD report of the expert was erroneous. Accused stated that there was no dibbi as such it was a wooden tray having small selve in which the pay packets of the individuals were placed; the authority letter for collecting the pay of the absentee employee was produced by the bearer of the authority letter at the time of disbursement of the pay; the pay packets of the absentee employee was deposited back with the cashier by the paying officer; only the office superintendent can tell about the payment sheets as after audit the record used to be remained in his custody. Accused stated that as long as he was in the 505, Army Workshop, Brig. Bibhuti was not the Colonel Administration. Accused stated that there was no fix time for audit of check rolls; name of Manphool was mentioned in documents as a clerical mistake while the correct name of the employee was Harphool. Accused stated that the salary of the absentee employees were strictly handed over to the person carrying the authority letter. Accused stated that the sanction accorded RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 11/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani was without application of mind and erroneous. Accused admitted that his signatures and specimen handwriting was taken. Accused also stated that he had been made a scape goat for the lapses committed by the Computer Operator, Office Superintendent, Accounts Officer, Paying Officer, Senior Charge­man, Audit and Test Audit Authority; he (accused) was pressurized by Colonel Vijay Kumar Tyagi, Presiding Officer of Court of Inquiry, Colonel Administration R.K. Sharma and Brgd. I.S. Cheema to deposit the amount from own pocket of accused and on his refusal to do so, this case was foisted on him.

RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 13/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani

14. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that accused had been made a scape goat for the lapses committed by the Computer Operater, Office Superintendent, Accounts Officer, Paying Officer, Senior Charge­man, Audit and Test Audit Authority. It was also argued that (1) accused was employed as Machinist and despite that he was assigned the task of Check Roll Clerk; (2) money was not handled by accused at all at any stage of collection, disbursement of salary or deposit of balance cash which was left after disbursement of salary, to the Cashier; (3) accused was not a computer literate nor had any knowledge to work in the GW Basic programme on computer of 505, Army Base Workshop, on which programme the data in sole computer of computer branch of 505, Army Base Workshop was fed by computer operator PW H.P Arya nor accused had any knowledge of the password necessary for access to such computer; even PW H.P Arya admitted that such password was known to him and his Incharge only; PW Manoj Chaurasiya, PW Anuj Kamal and PW Harish Kumar Vashishth were taught nothing at Baba Saheb Ambedkar Polytechnic from where they as well as accused had got only the certificate of a computer course though they had initially paid the fees for diploma in Mechanical Engineering on part time basis for which course said institute was found not recognized by AICTE, so to adjust the fees, the said institute gave the certificate of computer course without imparting any education, classes or practical training; (4) it was the payment sheet which reflected the money paid to the employee as RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 14/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani monthly salary; it was the job of PW H.P Arya to prepare the payment sheet and not that of accused as Check Roll Clerk; there was no hand of accused in doing anything for generation of payment sheets; as per PW H.P Arya, payment sheet would generate automatically after data of check rolls and recoveries relating to the society were fed into the computer; even PW Kamlesh Bisht stated in deposition that unless one is trained in GW Basic Programme, he or she cannot prepare the pay package independently; (5) as per the charter of the duties and responsiblilities, it was the responsibility of the Accounts Officer to see that the prepared check rolls were in order, subsequent to which the payment procedure was to be followed; (6) PW Kanwar Bhan Saini had stated that the regimental recovery sheets used to be retained by the cashier but these regimental recovery sheets were not seized during the course of investigation; (7) PW Om Parkash, the then UDC in Finance Section of 505, Army Base Workshop who used to prepare the Check Roll Nos. IX and X in the years 1999­2001; DW1 Naresh Kumar, the then Check Roll Clerk, in Finance Section of 505, Army Base Workshop from 1993 to 2001 and PW V.K Tyagi, the then Colonel General Manager (Project), T­72, 505, Army Base Workshop in their depositions had stated that the check rolls were in the custody of the Superintendent and not in the custody of Check Roll Clerk; PW Om Parkash further stated that Superintendent would further hand over the check rolls to the Daftari for audit; there was no movement register or record maintained for movement of the check rolls; DW1 stated that after audit check rolls RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 15/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani used to remain in store; PW V.K Tyagi admitted that the over all custody of the payment sheets and check rolls was with the Accounts Officer in the Finance Section while the dealing clerk was supposed to handle them as far as they pertained to his responsibility; PW Ms. Chitra admitted that every check roll was audited monthly and the check rolls were computer generated and no manual changes were therein; PW Yograj stated that after distribution of salary, concerned clerk used to deposit the check rolls with the accounts office; (8) whatever pay packets were taken by accused, they were taken by authority letter, as per the procedure followed in 505, Army Base Workshop; (9) no prosecution witness had deposed of having received money less in his monthly salary or not having received pay packet of his monthly salary nor any person whispered of any such grievance against accused; (10) as per Rule 182 of the Army Rules 1954 (as amended), the proceedings or confession in the Court of Inquiry was not admissible against the accused, so the Court of Inquiry report Ex PW6/A, exhibited under objection, is inadmissible in evidence; (11) there is no admissible evidence on record that accused had destroyed any document much less then the payment sheet; (12) even the task of preparation of pay packets was of the Paying Officer, Charge­man and Identifier and not of the accused who did not handle any money in the course of collection or disbursement of pay or deposition of the balance pay packets after such disbursement of the pay. Ld. Counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of the accused for the offences charged stating that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 16/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani accused beyond reasonable doubt.

28. PW21 Sh Virender Singh, Machinist, 505 Army Base Workshop deposed that the Check Roll Clerk of Finance Section used to get the data fed in the Computer Section regarding payment of salary; accused was posted in the Finance Section of Army Base Workshop; the salary was being prepared in computer in the basic programme; Check Roll Clerk used to tell him (PW21) and others in Computer Section, when he (PW21) worked there, the details of pay and they used to feed RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 29/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani the same in the computer; after feeding the data, a rough print used to be taken out to check out if there was any mistake; there used to be no error in the programme regarding calculation of salary, the error, if any, would be in the data supplied to him (PW21) and others in the Computer Section and not in the computer programme; accused used to come and work on the computer; when accused used to come to him (PW21) at that time accused was not posted on check roll but was looking after miscellaneous work; after feeding the data, first a pay slip would be generated by the computer system; thereafter a summary sheet would be generated which contained total of all payments; the payment sheet was prepared by Check Roll Clerk.

RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 35/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani

36. PW27 Ms. Chitra deposed that she was posted as Clerk in Defence Accounts Department in the office of LAO, 505, Army Base Workshop during the period 1999 to 2001. PW27 also deposed that towards November 1999 she (PW27) was entrusted with the duty of post audit of check rolls received from the unit i.e., 505, Army Base Workshop; the check rolls used to be received after the payments were made by the unit and her (PW27) duty was to check the leave account and Part­II orders; she (PW27) was instructed by her senior officers that salary portion of the check roll was computer generated and there was not much need to check the same. As per PW27, she used to deal with check roll numbers X to XIII; in a particular check roll, the names of various employees were given in serial order; leave account was given on the left side and on the right side the salary account was given; on the right side page, i.e., the salary account, there were two portions; the first portion contained the details of credits in the form of basic pay, GPF, HRA, TA/DA,CCA etc; the second portion contained the details of debits in the form of GPF deductions, CGEIS deductions, CGHS deductions, miscellaneous deductions etc.; against each employee, the gross salary as well as net salary (after deductions) was shown; total of the gross salary as well as net salary (after deductions) paid to all employees in respect to a particular check roll was shown on the last sheet of the check roll, which was called summary sheet. As per PW27, Check Roll No. XI for the months of June 1999, Ex PW28/A; October 1999, Ex PW28/B; September 1999, Ex PW28/C; August 1999, Ex RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 36/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani PW28/D; July 1999, Ex PW28/E; December 1999, Ex PW28/F; November 1999, Ex PW28/G and Check Roll No. XII Exts PW1/G, PW1/K, PW1/N, PW1/T, PW1/Q, PW1/A (dated 17.05.2007) and PW1/D (dated 17.05.2007); Check Roll No. XII for the months of May 2000, Exts PW28/AA; April 2000, PW28/BB; August 2000, PW28/CC, February 2001, PW28/DD, December 2000, PW28/EE; July 2000, PW28/FF; September 2000, PW28/GG; October 2000, PW28/HH; February 2000, PW28/JJ; June 2000, PW28/KK; January 2001, PW28/LL; November 2000, PW28/MM; March 2000, PW28/NN; May 1999, PW28/PP; April 1999, PW28/QQ; check rolls pertaining to Check Roll No. XIII, Exts PW28/A1, B1, C1, D1,E1,F1,G1,H1,J1,K1, L1,M1, N1,P1,Q1,R1,S1,T1,U1,V1 and W1 were bearing her (PW27) signatures in token of having checked the same. Documents Exts PW28/A to PW28/G, Exts PW28/AA to PW28/QQ, Exts. PW28/A1 to W1 aforesaid are in CC No. 13/12. PW27 deposed that initially because the salary side was computer generated sheet and since her (PW27) senior officers had told that there was less chance of error in respect of this sheet, she (PW27) had not checked the salary side and she (PW27) had only checked the leave account and Part­II orders and increments; no fraud was detected at that stage; during later stages, she (PW27) checked the gross salary figure and net salary figure appearing against each employee on the various pages of the check roll, totaled these figures and tallied the said total figure with the figures "gross pay" and "net pay" appearing on the summary sheet; it was found that the figure of "net pay" appeared RC No. DAI/2002/A0033/CBI/ACB/ND CC No. 15/12 37/87 CBI vs Anil Kumar Dhyani on the summary sheet was inflated. PW27 also deposed that Check Roll No. XI for the period June 2000, Ex PW1/H at page 27 contained the calculations made by her (PW27); on totaling the net salary figure appearing against each employee on the various pages of this check roll, it was found that the total comes to Rs 5,06,806/­; however, the total net pay mentioned under the head "net pay" in the summary sheet was Rs 5,11,306; in this manner an excess amount of Rs 4,500/­ had been drawn by manipulating the figures; this kind of manipulations had been found in various check rolls; on coming to know about this manipulation, she (PW27) informed her senior officers about the discrepancies; the discrepancies continued for next two months; she (PW27) rechecked the previous check rolls which had been audited by her (PW27) earlier; it was found that these manipulations had been going on for about sixteen to seventeen months; an objection statement was prepared in the month of May 2001 for being sent to PCDA, Western Command, Chandigarh; these manipulations and discrepancies had arisen from the unit; whenever there was any need for calling someone for sorting out any such discrepancy, accused was used to be sent by the unit; Check Roll No. XI had the name of accused at serial no. 1.