In re Girraj Prasad v. . — 1963 DIGILAW 50 (RAJ)

The appellant Giriraj Prasad has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries dated 27.5.1963 whereby he held that the charges of negligence and complicity in the embezzlement of Rs. 1,500/- from the Treasury Bikaner were proved against the appellant and he was punished by withholding his two grade increments with cumulative effect. The facts are that the house loan was sanctioned in favour of one Chhaganlal. The last payment of Rs. 1,500/- was made to Chhaganlal by the Treasury Bikaner on 15.3.1961 of Rs. 1,500/. Some how or other double payment of the same amount was again made by the Treasury Bikaner on 30.3.1961. This fact was reported to the Collector, Bikaner and who sent a letter No. CB./HS/9032/60/26, dated the 26th April, 1961 calling upon the Treasury Officer Bikaner to report the circumstances under which this double payment of Rs. 1,500/- was made by the Treasury. The appellant was the receipt clerk in the Treasury at that time. He admitted receiving the letter on the date and putting it up to the then Accountant for signature in the usual course and then went on leave from the afternoon of 28th April and did not rejoin his duties till| 25 5-61. In the course of an enquiry the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries charge-sheeted the appellant for two reasons : (1) Negligence in putting up this important letter of 26th April, 1961 before the Treasury Officer, concerned. (2) Consequently his complicity in the embezzlement of Rs. 1,500/-. The Enquiry Officer gave an opinion that the appellant was guilty of the two charges and this opinion was confirmed by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries and he was consequently punished. It is against this order of the punishment that the present appeal has been filed. The appellant in his written statement however admitted that he no doubt received the letter while working as a receipt clerk in the Treasury, but he put it up immediately in the usual course of practice to the then Accountant in the absence of the Treasury Officer for signature, but the dak was not returned till he left on his sanctioned leave on 28.4.1961. He, therefore, denied his negligence. Therefore, in the present state the burden of proof that the appellant was negligent in not diarising the letter and putting it up for orders of the Treasury Officer lay on the Government. He, therefore, denied his negligence. Therefore, in the present state the burden of proof that the appellant was negligent in not diarising the letter and putting it up for orders of the Treasury Officer lay on the Government. Three witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution to establish this charge. Ramsingh, the then Accountants only statement is that he looked at the dak of that date, but did not see the letter exbt. P-1. Daga, whose only report was that this letter was found in the waste papers when he came back from leave on 9.5.1961 He got it entered in the receipt book on 10.5.1961 through Devisingh. Shri S.N. Purohit, the Treasury Officer says that he only saw the letter on 19.5.1961. The contention of the appellant was that this evidence does not hold the appellant guilty of the Act of negligence. He pleaded that there was a contradiction in the statement of Daga with regard to the letter. In fact the letter was never put up to the Treasury Officer till 19.5.1961. Exbt. P-l does not bear any signature of Daga prior to 19.5.1961 who although admits that he discovered this letter on 9.5.1961. Dagas report dated 19.5.1961 is a true copy of the original report which seems to have been lost. It is on this evidence that finding was based by ,the Enquiry Officer and the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries that Daga was responsible for negligence in not putting up this letter and hiding it. It is an admitted fact that the appellant went on leave after the admitted receipt of the letter on 26.4.1961. Thus he had only one clear working day of 27.4.1961 before he proceeded on leave and the other half-day on the 28th April. The appellants further contention was that no entries were made in the Receipt Register for 26th and 27th as nobody saw the dak and consequently there could be no question of entering the letter dated 26.4.61 exbt. P-l. There is a complete absence of finding by the Enquiry Officer and the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries that all the letters received on 26th and 27th and 28th were in fact diarised by the appellant Giriraj Prasad leaving only this letter out of the diary. P-l. There is a complete absence of finding by the Enquiry Officer and the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries that all the letters received on 26th and 27th and 28th were in fact diarised by the appellant Giriraj Prasad leaving only this letter out of the diary. In that case some conclusion could have been drawn that this letter was intentionally left undia-rised by the appellant with a view to cause, delay in detection of the embezzlement of the Government money. Further there is much force in the contention of the appellant that there were contradictions in the report of Daga as well as in his statement. In the report which is a copy, original having been lost, he says that the letter in question was found in the waste paper, but this fact he denied in his own statement. It is also true that if the letter dated 26.4.1961 Ex.P-l was filed on 9.5.1961. Why was it not put up before the Treasury Officer concerned by Daga where as the entry on the Ex. P-l shows that the letter was put up to him for the first time on 19 5-1961. There has been a delay in the report signed by Daga dated 19.5.1961 and his version of finding the letter exbt P-l on 10.5.1961. In fact, if Daga was careful he should have given the report of the finding of this letter on the same date. Thus Dagas version cannot be believed. Merely on the sole evidence of Ramsingh that he did not see the letter exbt. P-l when he worked as an Accountant does not mean that this letter was not put up to him unless it could be shown that all the letters on the date were put up and signed by him and diarised and this letter alone was with held by the appellant. Thus the charge of negligence on the sole testimony of Ramsingh and that too of a vague type cannot be considered to have been established against the appellant. A careful receipt clerk no doubt could have asked the working Accountant that as he was going away on leave he would like to have all the dak so far received to be diarised, but there is nothing on record to show that all the dak of that date was sent back and diarised leaving this letter alone. A careful receipt clerk no doubt could have asked the working Accountant that as he was going away on leave he would like to have all the dak so far received to be diarised, but there is nothing on record to show that all the dak of that date was sent back and diarised leaving this letter alone. Thus the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the first charge of negligence against the appellant cannot be held to have been established. The enquiry was faulty in the sense that main fact whether all the dak received on that date was diarised or not has been completely missed. Charge No. 2 therefore is clearly dependent upon the charge No. 1. Charge No. 2 was complicity with a view to delay the detection of embezzlement. It is a fact that the appellant had proceeded on previously sanctioned leave and as a receipt clerk cannot be expected to pay individual attention to all the P.U.Cs. received and judge its importance whether some reference needed early attention of the office. If the Collector really wanted an early report he should have sent a personal D. O. letter to the Treasury Officer marked with priority slip for quick delivery. The letter Ex. P-l was not so marked and thus there was no urgency of this letter being dealt with on a priority basis. It may be noted that this embezzlement had already taken place earlier on 30.3.1961 and this fact was known to the Collector and others. It was only after 26 days that the Collector wrote to the Treasury Officer about this matter and called for the report. During this period the appellant himself had proceeded on sanctioned leave. Thus to link the appellant that there was a complicity or a conspiracy to defraud the State by getting the amount of Rs. 1,500/- embezzled is rather far fetched charge. The Enquiry Officer by a curious process of logic and reasoning has come to a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of this complicity. It maybe observed that the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries while considering the report of the Enquiry Officer simply agreed with him without applying his mind to the facts of the case. He took it for granted that whatever was reported and found by the Enquiry Officer was correct. He gave no reasons in affirming the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It maybe observed that the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries while considering the report of the Enquiry Officer simply agreed with him without applying his mind to the facts of the case. He took it for granted that whatever was reported and found by the Enquiry Officer was correct. He gave no reasons in affirming the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Such orders of the disciplinary authority serve no useful purpose. The disciplinary authority has to apply its own mind independently, consider the charges and weigh the evidence and judge for himself, whether the reasons applied by the Enquiry Officer in accepting the evidence were sufficient to establish the charges against the appellant. Under these circumstances the order of the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries therefore suffers from this grave defect. I, therefore, accept the appeal of the appellant, set aside the order of the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries and exonerate the appellant from the two charges framed against him and consequently set aside the order of imposing a penalty of withholding two grade increments. The period spent by him on suspension may be treated as on leave to the extent it is available to the appellant and the rest on duty. It may also be mentioned that the appellant had already been acquitted by the criminal court of the charges of criminal breach of trust.