Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Vide memorandum dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure A-2), charge-sheet for major penalty was served on the applicant containing 3 Articles of Charges. Crux of the charge was that the applicant did not follow the proper procedure in the procurement of material as laid down in the General Financial Rules (GFR), 2005 and recommended the procurement of material, release of payment of Rs. 27,42,209/- to the contactors without realizing sanctioning capacity of Director Incharge under delegated financial powers, and recommended the booking of expenditure under the Head CWG/Schemes to the Director Incharge who was not competent to divert the funds. Case of the applicant is that the entire power was of the Director Incharge and it was he who exercised the said powers whereas the role of the applicant was just of the Postmaster. Tender was of the items with estimated cost of less than Rs. 25 lac and it could be floated under Rule 151 of the GFR by Limited Tender Enquiry (LTE). The actual cost could vary by 10% of the estimated cost. Actual cost was also between Rs. 22 lac  23 lac, but the extra amount was paid due to unforeseen expenses including transportation, labour, local taxes etc. DDO/Accounts Officer being financial experts had calculated the amount. Duty of the applicant was to inspect the items received and to inform his superiors. The tender was floated on the instructions of the Director Incharge. The applicant neither sent any proposal nor recommended the purchase or release of payments.
6. Main ground of attack of the applicant on impugned punishment order (Annexure A- 8) and appellate order (Annexure A-10) is that everything was done by the Director Incharge and on his orders and the applicant was acting only as messenger for transmitting the files from lower authority to higher authority and vice versa. Another ground is that there was no violation of GFR nor there was any misconduct on the part of the applicant.
7. Respondents nos. 2 & 3 in their reply while not disputing the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant culminating into impugned punishment order (Annexure A- 8) and appellate order (Annexure A- 10), defended the said orders to be legal and valid. It was pleaded that there was no defect in the enquiry or disciplinary proceedings. The applicant has himself admitted the irregularities in the procurement of goods/items/equipments. There was deviation and violation of the rules and procedures made by the applicant. Grounds pleaded by the applicant including factual background to assail the impugned orders were controverted in detail. It has been pleaded that charge nos. 1 & 3 were duly proved against the applicant and accordingly penalty has been rightly imposed on him.
8. Applicant filed rejoinder wherein he controverted the stand of the respondents and reiterated his own version.
9. Vide M.A. No. 060/00249/2016, the applicant has placed on record order dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure A-13) whereby, relating to same procurement, penalty of withholding of retirement Gratuity of A.K. Sharma, the then Director NRC, Sonipat (since retired) for a period of five years was imposed.
10. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
11. Counsel for the applicant reiterated that goods upto Rs. 25 lac could be procured by LTE under Rule 151 of the GFR and in the instant case, estimated cost of the goods to be procured was less than 25 lac and, therefore, LTE procedure was followed. It was also pointed out that in case of urgency, for sufficient reasons to be recorded by the Competent Authority, purchase procedure of LTE could be adopted even for estimated value of procurement being more than 25 lac. It was submitted that the applicant as Deputy Director was not the Competent Authority. It was the Director who was the Competent Authority and who directed following of LTE procedure for procurement and granted sanction for payment of the amount to the Contractors. It was submitted that the applicant had no role to play in the whole procurement procedure and he was acting only as messenger for transmitting the files from lower authority to higher authority and vice versa. It was pointed out that for the same Articles of Charge, lesser punishment of withholding of retirement Gratuity for five years has been imposed on the then Director A.K. Sharma and, therefore, penalty imposed on the applicant who acted under the direction of the Director is excessive and disproportionate.
15. It also cannot be said that there was no deviation or violation of GFR in the procurement in question. If estimated cost of the articles was Rs. 22  23 lac only so as invoke LTE procedure, the cost could not have gone to Rs. 27,42,209/- which is much more than variation of 10% over the estimated cost. There is also no provision in the GFR relating to 10% variation in the estimated cost. Besides it, the expenditure was booked under the Head CWG/Scheme and the amount was paid to the Contractors on the recommendations of the applicant although the Director Incharge was not authorized to do so as per delegated financial powers and approved budgetary provisions. Even otherwise, the Court is not to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own finding. The Court cannot substitute its finding in place of the finding of the Enquiry Officer. There may be exception. For example, if the finding of the Enquiry officer is based on no evidence, it may be interfered with by the Courts. However, in the instant case, it is not so.