Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.10 The article of charge (vi) of processing and passing for payment an unsigned bill No. OG/1540/95-96 dated 16.09.95 submitted by Shri M.K. Dugar is concerned, the prosecution states that article of charge (vi) framed against Shri A. Deb is sustainable as stated by PW-21 and PEX-39. The defence states that while processing the bill, the tax payable found to have been certified by tax authority without the claimant signature. The said bill was also corrected EE, CWD who also overlooked the case which was a human error by all concern which was not intentionally.

The date of completion should have been 08.11.95 instead of 08.10.95 as recorded due to oversight and pressure of works, which was already being regretted in my reply dated 19.08.03 as such may please be treated as human error.

The PO has mentioned in conclusion that article No. VIII of the article of charges is mentionable but the P.O. has specifically mentioned in his report charge VIII it is difficult to sustainable.

This is an error apparent the phase of the record.

24. Similarly as regards the Article of Charge No. (vi), it is in the evidence that the particular bill dated 16.09.95 which was unsigned was processed by series of authorities beginning from Superintendent of Taxes to the Finance wing of the respondent Corporation and final payment was also made by the Finance wing. The absence of the signature of the contractor on the bill escaped notice of all the authorities including the Finance wing of the Corporation which had made the payment. It was a human error, but the enquiry officer picked up the petitioner alone to hold that he was guilty of the said charge.