I ll t he HighCourt ofPunj aband Haryana v. Cent ralAdm inist rat iveTribunal ChldigarhBench

That Shri Anil Dalal AlC No 8323026 while servingas Audit or in t he ofSce of CA West em Com m and 6St oreCont ract Seclduringt he period3287 t o 1539l failed t o exerclse t he fundam ent al audit checks and t ake t o safcguardt he publiclnt erest 111 dischargeof his dut ies Therebyhe facilit at ed com lnlSS10n of em bezzlem entof publicnloney t o t he t une of Rs 292O lacs 6Twent yNine lacs t went yt housandonlylappx by negligent lypayingin unduehast e glaringlyfake I ocal purchasebills bearingprim efacie fake docum ent s t o have been subm it t edby HQrs62709AD Bde and 49 AD Regt Thus t he officer exhibit edlack of int egrit ylack of devot ion t o dut yand conduct unbecom ingof a Govt servant t hereby violat ingt he provisionsof Rule 361 and 6iiil of CCS Conduct Rules 196431 3 Alongwit h t he chargesheet a det ailed st at em ent of m isconduct l ist of doculnent s list of wit llessesand list s of addit ional bills were also enclosed Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Z 244 CW0 No 15066CAT of2003 Col 3 1 0 4 Aft erreceiptofhis replyet c t he decidedt o inlt iat e a inqiliryagainsthim Duringt he inquiryt he pet it ionerm ade an seeking t o engagea legal in t erins of Rule 1486aoft he CCS Rules as no one in t he was willingt ogivehim asslst ance On 2681993 t he DisciplinaryAut horit yrej ect edt he said I on t he groundt hatt he Present ingOfOcer in t he case was not a iegal pract lt ioneras per t he of Rule 1408a9of t he CCS Rules On 3A1998 t he I nquiryOfflcer gave his reportt o t he effect t hat t he pet it ioner duringt he inquiryhilnselfm ade adm issionsand accept edendorselnent swhich provedt hat he was guilt y and for colnm it t ingt he I t has been not iced by t he I nquiryOfficer t hat t he also adlnit t edabout writ ingsoine docum ent sin his own handwrit ing whichalso goes t o prove t hat he was involved int o a conspiracywit h ot hers I t t hus concluded t hatt hechargeagainstt hepet it ionerst ood proved 5 On 3 4 998 t he DisciplinaryAut horit ysuppliedcopyof t he I t lqUlryreportt o t he pet it ionerfor m akingany by hinl which was t o be subt nit t ed in writ ingwit hin 15 days A19 On 30 1998 t he sublnit t edhis raisingvarious issuesagainstt he inquiry reportAft er t he t he passed an orderrelnovingt he pet it ionerfrom service weE 20 1999 The relevant port ionoft he im pugnedorder dat ed 19A1999 6Ae2readst husl 1 r 0 C I 0 I Z I c6 r m Z Llw 6 t he docum ent aryevidence on record findings t he inquiryofficer point sraised by Shri Dalal in his and t ot alit yof circum st ancest he Snds t hat Shri Anil Dalal nol onlyfailed t o exercise fundam ent ala4dit checksand t ake pecaut iont o safeguardpublic111t erest Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 245 44 r 0 C I C5 I C I 08 C 7 Z CWP No 15066CAT of2003 4 which result ed lll payingin undue hast e of glaringly fake local bills but he also cert ain docum ent s his own handwrit ingln an unaut horisedm anner t hereby a conspiracywit h ot hers And since such conduct rendershim unfit for of Rem oval from Service upon Shri Dalal 7 Now t herefore t he herebyim posesupon t he said Shri Anil Dalal Audit or AlC No 8323026 t he penalt yof 6 Rem oval froin service wit heffectfrom 20 April 199 The pelit ionerpreferreda st at ut ory appealagainst t he orderdat ed 194 1999 which was rej ect edbyt he Appellat eAut horit yvide orderdat ed 1491 999 6A41 The pet it ionert hen filed OA No 921CH12000 beforct he Trlbunalchallenglngt he aforelnent ionedorders The Tribunal also t he arguinent sadvancedbyt he pet it ionerand dism issed t he original vide order dat ed 1 8 002 The relevant ext ract of t he order Tribunalis as underl 44 Leam ed counsel for t he applicantwhile referringt o t he flndingsof t he I nquiryOfficer drew our at t ent ion speciflcallyt o t he port ionof t he 8ndingswherein it has been st at ed He also has adm it t ed about writ ingsom e docum ent s in his own writ ingwhich also goes t o prove t hat he was involved int o a conspiracywit h ot hers t o cont endt hat Olis was goingbeyondt he chargeleveled againstt he applicant There was no chargeof and if t he sam e has been provedby t he lO and becainet he basisoft he order ofpenalt ypassedby t he disciplinary aulhorit ysuch an order is not sust ainablelegally We fzd t h8t it Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 0 C0 0 I Z r I 08 0 7 Z Oa 246 CNP No 15066CAT of2003 5 isan at t enptt o onlyfocus at t ent ionon a partoft he findingsThe flndingsalso include t hat t he C0 had adm it t ed alm ost all t he irregularit iesexcept a few and t hat he at t ribut ed t hese irregularit ieseit her t o lack of knowledgeor rush of work The applicanthad also adm it t edt he fact of even m akingendorsem ent som e ot her bills about t he cert iOcat e He has also admit t ed about writ ingsom e docum ent s in his own which he was not supposedt o do llhe use of t he word conspiracyin t he inquiryreport cannot t ake away t he fact his failure t o exercise t he fundam ent al checks and t o t ake adequat eprecaut ionst o t he publiclnt erest 111 of his dut ies I n fact t he Art icle of chargealso st at ed t hat he facillt at ed com m ission of em bezzlem ent by ot hers of public inoneyt o t he t une of Rs 2920 lacs by negligent lypaying ln llllduc hast efake local purchasebills Onlyt hat has been referred t o by t he disciplinaryaut horit yby use of word conspiracy Chargeof facilit at ingem bezzlem entwas alreadyt here He has becn held guilt yofallowingt his t o occur There is no reason foius t o hold ot herwise The inquiryhas been conduct ed followingt he requiredprocedureand t he ordersoft he disciplinary and appellat eaut horit iesare well reasonedand do not call for any int erferenceby us As regardst he plea of t he applicantt hat t he penalt y inlposedon hiin is not com inensurat e wit h t he gravit yof charge colnnlit t ed it is t o pointout t hat a Tribunallcourtin it s powet of Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 j udicialreview cannot norlnalI ysubst it ut eit s Owll Conclllsion Oll I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 247 4 1 0 0 I C5 Z m r I 08 CQ 7 Z 0m CWPNo15066lTof2003 1 6 penalt yfor t hat of t he one decided by t he colnpet enlaut horit y The aut horit ies being fact lnding aut horit ies have exclusive power t o lm pose appropriat e punishm entkeepingln t he or gravit yof t he misconduct However t he im posedby t hese aut horit lesshocks t he conscience of a Tnbunal I n t he relief can be m oulded eit her direct ingt he discipl im posed aut horit ies t o reconsider t he penalt y and rare cases be ilnposedwit h cogentreasons 111supporlt hereof This has becn t he view t aken by Hon ble Suprem eCourt Chat urvcdi vs Union of I ndia and ot hers 1995 651SLR 778 The case on hand is not such as calls for our int erferencewit h t he penalt yiinposed 7 Mr Dincsh Kum ar I earnedcounsel for t he pet it ionerhas at t acked t he order of t he Tribunal byraisingt wo issues His Orst subinission is lhat in lcrnlS of Rule 146a of t he CCS Rules t he pet it ionerwas ent it led t o t he assislance of a legal becauset he Present ingOfOcer was an expert lll coilduct ing inquiriesalt houghhe wasnot legalpract it ioneror L qualifled law graduat eAccordingt o t he learnedcounsel t he expressionused 44 t he Rule t hat t he disciplinaryaut horit yhavingregardt o t he Cfrcum st ances of t he case lnust perm ita delinquentofficer t o engaget he servlceS of a legal pract illoncrand in t he fact s and circulnst ancesoft he case it was inct lillbellt Oil t he disciplinaryaut horit yt o grant t o t he pet it ionert o engaget he scrvices of a legalpract it ionerI n supportof his subm ission I earnedcounsel Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 hasplaceclrcliancc on t hcj udgm entof 140nble t he SuprelneCourt re17dered2n I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 248 4 0 C I C I Z W I 08 00 7 Z t l CWP No 1506aCAT of2003 7 lhe case of JK Aggarwalv HaryanaSeeds Devopnlt Corporat ion Ud 1991 651SLR 78 and arguedt hat in t hat case by a legallyt rained m ind alt houghhe wasnot a t hc Suprem eCourt viewed t he refusal t o accord sanct ion for cngaginga I awyOl111t lle inquirYas exercise of discret ion which result ed in failure of nat ural j ust ice He has drawn our at t ent ion in part iculart o 8 9 and 10 in supportofhis subm ission Learned counsel has also reliance on ofHonble t he Suprem eCourt renderedin t he case of CL Subrainanium v Collect or of Cust om s Cochin 197213 SCC 542 8 The ot her sublnission m ade by t he learned counsel is t hat in t he chargesheet t he role of t he pet it ioneras Audit or has been alollgwit ht he nam es of Shri R Kaul who checked t he bills and Shri K Account s Offlcer who passedt he bills Accordingt o t he learned counsel t herc is host ile discrim inat ion inasm uch as I I l t he t nqillrY conduclcd againstot her t wo personst heyhave cit her been exoncrat edor t heyare let off wit h a sm all The argum cntis lhat silch a host ile discrim inat ionis becauset he payinenton t he basis of lhc bills is olle t ransact ion and it is not open t o The appearst o be t hat all t he officers share checkingand passingof t he bills which were event uallyfound t o be false and all of t hein have t heir own role t o play I t 1S Oll aCCOUnl of t bc int egrat ed t ran sact l Oll t hat t he allegat ionof conspiracyhas been found t o be provedbut at 9h lhc sanlc t inle t he ot hers RC Kaul and K Rast ogihave been left out 9 Anot her arguinentraised by t he learned counscl is t hat t he Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 pet lt ionerhas been found guilt yof hat chinga conspiracyalongwilholhers I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 249 4 1 0 C3 I C5 I Z V2 I a5 r1 W7 Z Qm CWP No 15066CAT of2003 8 which was not even part of t he chargesheet and t herefore t here is Oagrant violat lon oft he principlesofnat uralj ust ice 10 Mr Sanj ayGoel learned counsel t he vehem ent lyarguedt hat full was afforded t o t he pet it ionerin t he inquiryand t here lS no vi61at ionof principlesof nat uralj ust ice causingany prej udlcet o t heright soft he pet it ionerHe has m aint ainedt hatt he CCS Rules have been religiouslyfollowed and t he pet it ionerhas failed t o point oul any pat entviolalion of t he Rules He has referred t o t he inquiryreport dat ed3A 1988 6A49showingt hat all t herelevantdocum ent swere suppliedt o t he pet it ionerHe was also providedwit h t hecopiesofall t helist ed doculncnt s as dcsired by him and he was perinit t edt o inspectt he list ed as well as addit ionaldoculnent s Hc has t henreferredt o t he st at em ent ofadlnission lnade byt he pct it ionerwhich adm it t ed t o st em from lack of knowledgcHe also it t ed t hat m any irregularit iescould not be t ackled on account of rush of The pet it ionerhas also adlnit t edt he writ ingOn t he docum ellt s in his OWll and referred t o t he prevailingpract lceby coveringof de6cicncyln OnC bill by adj ust ingt he alnount Sorn ot hers Learned counsel has t hen t nent loncdabout t he findingt hat endorsem enthas been m adc bv t he pet it ioncrhim selfwhich prove t hat he is guilt yandis for com m it t ing t heseirregularlt ies I i On t he issue ofa I egalpract it ionerlearnedcounscl for t he has arguedt hat t he legal could be engaged undcr Rule 14896a9oft he CCS Rules onlywhen t he Present ingOfflcer lS a I aw t lraduat e The 111CrCfact t hat t he Offlcer had conduct edfew rvould ilol nlakehiln a I egal corner t he Rules so as t o perm itt he assist ance of a I egal oi bringhinl wit hin t he four Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 250 CWP No 15066CAT of2003 C 41 9 4 t o t he learnedcounselt he pet it ionerhas t o show how on account of t he nonengagem entof legal he has suffered prej udiceeven if his arguinent is accept edt hat he was ent it led t o engage a legal I n respectof t he j udgm ent sof Honble t he Suprem eCourt leam ed counsel has arguedt hat t he case rule was ent irelydifferent lI l t hat case Rule 70f t he Punj abCivil Services and Appeal9 1952 was under considerat oionwhereasin t he presentcase CCS Rules areapplicableHis last subm issionon t he aforesaidissueis t hat in any case t he have claim ed t he assist ance of a especiallywhen t he Present ingOfficer was not a legal ora law I l respectof t he quest ionof discrim inat ion Mr Goel has st iblnit t ed t hat t he pet it ionerhas not been t o any discrim inat ion Accordingt o t he learned counsel t he pet it ionerhas adlnit t ed t he chargeswhich facilit at ed paynlento f over Rs 29 lacs againslt he fake local Had t he pet it ionerfollowcd t he t he bills t hen such a fraudulentt ransact ioncould have been avoided and t he fake bills could have bccn det ect ed 12 1 will be appropriat efirst t o read t he provisionsof Rule oft he CCS Rules which readas under r 0 C I 0 I Z I 08 CO Z Qm 14 Procedure for im posingm aj orpenalt ies 611t o 671 Xxx XXX Xxx 6896aThe Governlnent servant inay t ake t he assist ance of any ot her Governinentservant post edin any office eilher at his Ol at t he placewhere t he inquiryis held t o presentt he case on his behalf but m ay not engage a legal for t he purpose unless t he Present ingOfficer Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 251 4 4 r 0 0 m m 0 Z Z r C I 08 00 r J Z CWP No 15066CAT of2003 10 appoint by t he disciplinaryaut horit ylS a proner t he disciplinaryaut hovilyhavingregardt o t hecircum st ances oft hecase so perm lt s Provided t hat t he Governm ent servant m ay ake t he assist ance of any ot her Govem m ent servant post cdat any ot her st at ion if t he inquiringaut horit ybavingregardt o t he Cl rCUlll st ances of t he case and for reasons t o be recordedin Writ ingso perm lt s Not e The Govem m ent servant shall not t ake t heassist ance of any ot her Govem m ent servant who has t hree pending disciplinarycases on hand in which he has t o giveassist at lce93 6b9 XXX 69Jt o 239 xxx XXX XX Ut alicsbyusl 13 The unam ended Rule which WaS Rule 1551of t he CCS Rules at ldakn t o t he aforesaidRule canle up for int erpt ion oft lleii I oldshipsof Hon ble t he Suprem eCourt 1r1 CeL Subram anium s 6supra t he it alics partoft he Rule t heirLordshipsofHonble t he Suprem e Court held t hat lll t he fact s and circum st ancesof t hat case t he Present ing Officer was a t ralnedprosecut orallhoughnot a legal graduat e and norconsiderat ion of t he of a delinquentofcer t o engage a counsel I ll suchcircuinst anceswas held t o be violat ion oft he Rule However when we applyt he Rule t o t he lfact sof t he presentcase t here is no t lnding recorded by any aut horit yt hat t he pet it ionerwas pit t edagainsta t rained There is not hingon record t o suggestt hat t he Present ingOfficer in t he present case was such a t rained person t bat only a legally t ram ed Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 252 9 m C 0 C I CD I Z C I 08 Cr Z r CWP No 15066CAT of2003 11 could have been a m at ch t o his legalskill Moreover t he fact s Were not which would warrant engagem entofa legal Therefore we do not Snd any subst ancein t he aforesaidargum entadvancedon behalf oft he pet it ioner 14 There are t wo ot her fact ors which have been urgedin supportof t he pet it ionnainelyt hat t herewas no chargeofconspiracylevelled againstt he pet it ionerbut t he I nquiryOfOcer has recordedt hinding t o t his eHect The concludingpart of t he I nquiryReportwould show t he Sndingwhich reads lI lUSl 64 The very t hat he him self m ade t hese elldorselnent s goes t o prove t hat she he291S guilt yand lS He for colnm it t ingt hese also has adlnit t edabout writ ingsom e docum ent sin his own hand writ ingwhich also goes t o prove t hat he was involved llnt o a conspiracywit h ot hers To t his ext ent I am preparedt o agree t o t he arguinent sputforward by t he PO in h writ t en brief 15 lt is fact uallycorrect t hat t he I nquiryOfficer has t ravelledbeyond t he scope of t he chargesHad t herebeen no Sndingof t he aforesaid nat ure t hen t he DisciplnaryAut horit ym ay not have inflict ed on t he pet it ioner ext relnepunishinentofrem oval from service 16 Anot her fact or which would have bearingon t he lllst ant case lS t hat person like Shri RK Kaul who checked t he bills and Shri K Rast ogi Account s Offlcer who passedt he bills have not been t reat edequallyalt hough t heyWere m uch lnore and were holdingm ore responsiblepost s Theywere ent rust edwit h t he dut yof checkingt he bills and t inal sanct ion of Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 t he paym ent s Therefore t he t heoryof conspiracywit h t he aforesaid ofcers I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 253 CWP No 15066CAT of2003 11 12 m 0 C I 0 I Z I c6 W3 Z Cln cannot be support cdon fact s I n any case t he ext rem e of rem oval wouldbe unvarrant ed in t he fact sand circum st ancesoft he presentcase 17 I t m ay be t rue t hat unless t here is violat ion of of t he Rlles t he quant umof cannot be int erferedwit h For t he aforesaid reliance m ay be placedOI l t he FI onblet he SuprelneCourt in t he cases ofMit hilesh Singhv Union of I ndia 620033 SCC 309 BC Chat urvedi v Urlion of I ndia 199596 SCC 749 and Om Kum ar v Union of 30112 SCC 386 However t he aforesaid I egalprincipleis subj ectt o a furt her frot ll concept The principleem erging8oln which elnerges esbulI 5 conccpthas bcen cryst allisedby a Severludges in t he case of Ranlcsliwa2rasadI VI I ve Union ofI ndia 200612 SCC l byobservingas underl 242 The ssociat ed Provincial Pict uve Houses 1t d V Corpn 94811 KB 2231principleis 08en llllsLlllderst oodt o m ean t hat any adm inist rat ivedecision which 1S regardedby t he Court t o be unreasonablem ust be st ruck down he correct of t he Wednesburyprincipleis t hat a decision will be said t o be unreasonablein t he if1 it I S based on whollyirrelevantm at erial or whollyirrelevant considerat ion 6iilit has ignoreda very relevant lnat erial which lt should have t aken int o considerat ion or iiil it is so absurdt hat no sensibleperson could ever have reachedit 18 Once t he aforesaldposit ionin law is accept edt hen int erferenceon t hequant um and warrant ed I nt heilnput at ion Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 of chargesI eveiled againstt he pet it ionert here I S 110 allegat ionwit h regardt o I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 254 CWP No 15066CAT of2003 t 1 r r1 13 4 elnbezzI em entor The chargespert ainedt o passingofbills in hast e The has adm it t edt hat on account ofrush ofwork such a lapse hadoccurred 19 As a sequelt o t he above iiscussion t he im pugnedj udgm ent passedby t he Tribunal dat ed 1282002 and t he order of rem oval dat ed 19A 1999 A29 are herebyset aside The DisciplinaryAut horit yis direct edt o re consider t he punishm ent inflict ed upon t he pet it ionerand pass an order The awardedt o ot herslike SihrlRK Kaul wllo checkedt he biI ls and Shri K Rast ogiAccount s Officer who passedt he shall also be t akenint o account especiallyin view oft he fact t hatpassing of t he bill I eadingt o paym entconst it ut e one int egraIt ransact ion which has been dealt by t hreehandsin t he presentcase The need811shail be done wit hin a periodoft hree m ont hsfrom t he dat eofreceiptofa copy oft his order 20 The writ pet it ionst andsdisposedofin t he above t ernls C 0 C0 I C9 I Z 5r I 08 ClO 7 Z t l Oct oberlS2010 Pkapoor l 111 r 0 r1 P Y r e CP 1 l RAA MlVI KUMARj JUDGE RI TU BAHRI I JUDGE Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document