Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Thereafter, a second charge sheet dated 11th October, 2004 was issued against the respondent stipulating the following allegations, pertaining to the said period of May, 1997 to May, 1998:

"Article I : That the said Sh BA Thayalan while functioning as DEO Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh during the period May 1997 to May 1998 conducted a series of auctions of different categories of trees at Ammunition Deport, Dappar. The number of trees involved was about 4500. Sh Thayalan disposed off these trees by public auction in small lots to deliberately bring the same within DEO's financial limit of Rs. 10,000/-. This was in contravention of the instructions contained in DGDE letter No. 36/1/L/L&C/61 dated 12.2.82 and Govt. of India, Ministry of Defense letter No. 36/1/L/L&C/61/19/ SD(Lands) dated 7.2.1986. By doing so, Sh Thayalan violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3.

25. The petitioners also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that two other Unit Accountants of the Defense Accounts Department had been penalized in relation to the subject matter of the first charge sheet, by imposing cuts in their pension, for not following the prescribed procedure and for the failure to safeguard public interest.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defense (DGDE) letter no, 9/5/SC/C/DE dated 14th July, 1994, which lays down the procedure to release the service charges to local bodies other than Cantonment Boards. As per the said procedure, the respondent did not follow any of the requirement which the respondent was required to follow which are as follows:

"He had approached this Tribunal on 1.2.2010 after making several representations to DGDE/ Ministry of Defence/CVC. The OA was listed on 10.2.2010 when notice was issued returnable on 3.3.2010. The respondents sought adjournment on the said date and the case was adjourned to 15.4.2010. The respondents once again sought time to tile- their response and the matter was again adjourned to 28.5.20.10. On 28.5.2010 learned counsel for the respondents made a statement that the respondents would be filing their response in the course of the day. The matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 5.7.2010. In the meantime, with a view to defeat the judicial process, it is pleaded, instead of filing reply explaining the delay and justification, therefore, the respondents had hurriedly manipulated the process and obtained the second stage advice of CVC on 19.5.2010 in the case of one enquiry and on 24.5.2010 in the case of the second enquiry recommending major penalty in one case and minor penalty in the other. Along with the rejoinder the applicant has placed on records memorandum dated 21.5.2010 vide which he has been sent copies of Ministry of Defence memorandum of even date along with enquiry report dated 29.9.2008 and 2 nd stage advice of CVC dated 19.5.2010 for submission of representation there against."

52. This Court too has evaluated the charges said to be proved against the respondent in the backdrop of the observations of the Tribunal. With regard to the first charge the Tribunal examined the enquiry report dated 29th September, 2008 wherein the allegation of releasing Rs. 38.25 lakhs as service charges to four non-entitled Gram Panchayats of different villages in the districts of Bhatinda and Patiala in violation of the instructions issued by the Government of India (DGDE) dated 14th July, 1994 was considered. The Tribunal noted that the Enquiry Officer had held that the respondent was guilty of violating the procedure, however, he had also observed that it could not be categorically established that the Gram Panchayats to whom the payment of service charges were made were not entitled to such payment. It was also noted by the Tribunal that it is not the case of the department that the respondent had misappropriated the amount. Even the police had thoroughly investigated and reinvestigated the matter from every angle and found that the respondent is absolutely innocent.