WRIT PETITION NO. 289 OF 200 5 v. The State of Goa

" ANNEXURE - I STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED L.D. SURESH G. AGAINST SHRI CLERK /CASHIER PARAB, ARTICLE - I 3 Shri Sures h G. Parab while functioning as L.D. Clerk cum Cashier in the office of the Assista n t Engineer, Elect., Sub- Divn. II (U), Panaji- Goa, under the control of the Executive Engineer, Elect. O & M Div. I, Panaji- Goa for the period from 1988 to 1995 failed to follow the correct procedu re s of Accounting and maint ai ne d the registers such as Challan Register, Cash Book, daily cash collection details / s c r olls and Register, etc. in haph az a r dly man ner and misma n age d the Governme n t money with dishone s t motive thereby committing grave irregularities in maint aining office records. By the aforesaid acts the said Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s hie r has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a man ne r unbecoming of a Governme n t Servant, thereby violating Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduc t) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE - II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier manipulate d the entries in the cash book by reversing the entries of the bounced cheque s on the receipt side as well as the payme nt side due to which the correct position of the 4 bounced cheques / c h a lla n could not be asserted causing mism a n a ge m e n t and irregularities. By the aforesaid acts the said Shri Sures h G. Parab has failed to maint ain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a man ne r unbecoming of a Governme n t Servant, thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE -III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s hie r negligently, fraud ule ntly and intention ally failed to take action of sending the unrealised cheques to the cons u m e r s and inform the billing section for reverting the paid entries causing loss to the Governme nt and und ue benefit to the cons u m e r s . ANNEXURE - II STATEMENT OF IMPUTATIONS OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI SURESH G. PARAB, L.D. CLERK /CASHIER . ARTICLE - I Shri Sures h G. Parab while functioning as L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier in the office of the Assista nt Engineer, 5 Electricity Depart me n t Sub- Div.

II(U), Panaji - Goa under the control of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Depart me n t O&M Division I, Panaji - Goa, during the period 1988 to 1995 was handling cash tran s ac tion s in respect of Electricity cons u m p tio n charges and security deposit charges pertaining to Sub- Divn. II(U), Panaji. During one of the Audit inspection, it was noticed that, Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier failed to maintai n various registers, like challan register, cheque register, daily cas h collection scrolls / r egister, cash book, etc. as per the financial rules. In some cases, they were maintai ned in a hap h az a r d man ne r with the dishone s t motive to misma n a ge and defrau d Govern me n t money. Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier did not maintai n the cheque register i.e. Register of valuable in Form GAR- 4 and register of bills, due to which it was not possible to trace the exact position of the amou nt of misma n age d or misappropriated.

However, an amou n t of Rs.1,45,989 / - is pres u m e d to be misapp ropria ted during the period from 1.1.1995 to 26.10.199 5 on accoun t of bounce cheques for which no records are maintaine d. Besides, the shortage due to lack of proper challan records are calculated as Rs.5,73,234 / - for which Shri Sures h G. Parab is primarily responsible totaling to Rs.7,19,22 3 / - . ARTICLE - II That during the afores aid period and while functioning as such in the afores aid office said Shri Sures h G. Parab 6 failed to follow prescribed procedu r es of Accounting prescribed under the financial rules. During the Audit, it was found that the entries made in the cash book pertaining to bounce d cheques / c h a ll a n s were reversed on the receipt side as well as the paymen t side and hence the correct position of bounced cheque / c h a lla n s was not known and available causing lot of hards hip and inconvenience thereby committing breac h of trust with the idea of misappropria ting the Govern me n t money.

ARTICLE - III Shri Sures h G. Parab, while functioning as L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier in the office of the Assista n t Engineer, Elect., Sub- Divn.II(U), Panaji under the control of the Executive Engineer, Elect., O&M Div. I, Panaji - Goa committed grave irregularities as muc h as he negligently, fraud ule n tly and intention ally failed to follow the proced ure s of sending the unrealised cheques to the Consu m e r s and to intimate the billing section of the same for recording appropriate entries in the ledger of the said Consu m e r s . While, the cons u m e r s were paying in cash as well as in cheques towards the electric cons u m p tion charges and security deposit charges, on many occasions the payment made in cheques were found bounced due to no /les s balance in the bank to clear the cheques prese nte d by the Cons u m e r s and therefore, no money was realised causing loss to the Govern me n t and und ue benefit to the Cons u m e r s . As per the procedur e and rules, the unrealised cheques 7 were to be sent to the concer ne d cons u m e r s for making up to date payment in cash and copy was to be sent to the billing section for recording minu s entries in the ledger thereby leaving a difference of Rs.7,19,22 3 / - Rs.1,45,989 / - on accou nt of bounced cheques and Rs.5,73,234 / - on accou nt of non availability of duly accou nte d challan remitta nce.

Shri Sures h G. Parab, while functioning as L.D. Clerk / C a s hi er in the above office committed gross irregularities and negligence of duty and found to be dishones t with serious dereliction of duty. ARTICLE - IV Shri Sures h G. Parab, while functioning as L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier in the office of the Assista n t Engineer, Elect., Sub- Div.II(U), Panaji under the control of the Executive Engineer, Elect., O&M Div. I, Panaji - Goa deliberately accepted cas h from one Shri Dalal bearing Electrical Installation No. PJM- 8B- 107 amou n ti ng to Rs.8902 / - towards energy cons u m p tion charges issuing him valid official receipt. The amou n t so received towards energy bills Nos. 144711, 136081, 553545, 75610 733240, 68679 0 and 200981 was paid by Shri Dalal to Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s hie r, who used the said amou n t for his person al use instead of depositing it in the Govern me n t treas u ry.

Besides, this amou nt was shown as arrear s in the name of the cons u m e r , Shri Dalal thereby misappropriating said amou n t. ARTICLE - V 8 Shri Sures h G. Parab, while functioning as L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier in the aforesaid office during the aforesaid period signed the challan s without any authority and instr uctions issued in writing from the Assista n t Engineer. In fact, the Assista n t Engineer was the office in charge of the Division and aut horised person to sign the challan. The authority of signing the challans was us ur pe d by Shri Sures h G. parab illegally and una u t h orise dly. Moreover, Shri Sures h G. Parab signed on the challan s as Assista n t Engineer above the designa tion rubber stam p s of the Assista n t Engineer without any indication that challan s was signed for and on behalf of the Assista n t Engineer giving a clear and false indication that the challan s were signed by the Assista n t Engineer of the Sub- Division.

The act on the part of Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s hie r was fraud ule n t and arbitrary inviting disciplinary action as per the rules. ARTICLE -VI Shri Sures h G. Parab, while functioning as L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier in the office of the Assista n t Engineer, Elect., Sub- Divn.II(U), Panaji under the control of the Executive Engineer, Elect., O&M Div.I, Panaji - Goa while collecting receipts from the bills issued to the cons u m e r s , rectified the amou n t s in many cases changing the total amou n t on the bills una u t h orise dly. Furt he r, the amou n t were collected short as compared to bills / co u n t e rfoils attac hed to the scrolls. It happe ned that the amou n t s were corrected in one or two places leaving aside the third 9 counterfoil. Thus committing misappropriation of Rs.40,24,3 9 3 / - as per the details as under :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Stateme n t 'A' Stateme n t 'B' Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989 34.601 1.17.772 1.52.373 1990 1.20.681 37.227 1.57.908 1991 1.85.991 1.17.913 3.03.904 1992 2.27.108 3.12.014 5.39.122 1993 3.66.341 6.51.551 10.17.89 2 1994 3.53.470 7.80.501 11.33.97 1 1995 up to 1.45.989 5.73.234 7.19.223

26.10.95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total 14.34.18 1 25.90.212 40.24.393 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By the aforesaid acts, the said Shri Sures h G. Parab, L.D. Clerk / C a s h ier has failed to maint ain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a man ne r unbecomi ng of a Governme n t servant, thereby violating Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Centr al Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964".

It is true that the petitioner is also being prosecu te d for the offences punis h a ble under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the said criminal case is pending before the Sessions Judge at Panaji.

Having considered the entire material available on record, we find no justifiable ground for quas hi ng the disciplinary proceedings or to stay the disciplinary proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal trial. In our view, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the pending criminal case and disciplinary proceedings are proceeded with. In Capt. M. Paul Anthon y vs. Bhar a t Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court ruled that depart me n t al proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simulta n eo u sly, though separ ately. The Apex Court did observe that if departm e n t al proceedings in the criminal case are placed on identical and similar set of fact and the charge in the criminal case against the delinque n t employee is of a grave natu re that involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the depart m e n t al proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal case. Whether the nat ur e of the charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved, would depend upon the natu re of the offence, the nat ur e of the case launc he d against the employee on 11 the basis of the evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge and due regard must be given to the fact that the departme n t al proceedings cannot be und uly delayed. In the light of the legal position laid down by the Supre me Court in Capt.M. Paul Anthon y (supr a) and the facts and circum s t a n c e s prevalent in the present case, we are not pers u a d e d to stay or quas h the disciplinary proceedings. In our considered view, the disciplinary proceedings mus t be take n to the logical conclusion and the criminal trial will take its own course.

The Writ Petition does not deserve to be admitted and is dismisse d in limine. R. M. LODHA, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. mc.