Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 173 (DEL)

J. K SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA

1996-02-09

A.K.JAIN, M.K.SHARMA

body1996
M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28. 10. 1983 passed by the respondent No. 3. removing the petitioner from service and also the order dated 31. 7. 1985 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN pursuance of a charge-sheet issued by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was instituted against him for major penalty on two specific articles of charges. ( 3 ) THE first charge related to receipt of subsequently tampered quotation submitted by the supplier and over-payment made to the firm by the petitioner against the terms and conditions of the purchase order. The second charge related to substandard and poor quality of the Tarpaulines received by him from the firm. ( 4 ) THE petitioner denied the aforesaid charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet mentionec above and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct regular enquiry against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges framed. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry in respect of the aforesaid charges against the petitioner submitted her report on 4. 6. 1983 holding charge No. 1 as proved and charge No. 2 pertaining to the poor quality and short size of the Tarpaulines as partly proved. On receipt of a copy of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority after examining the said enquiry report together with the relevant documents agreed with the conclusions in respect of harge No, 1. but did not agree with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge No. 2. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 28. 10. 1983 recording the reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge No. 2 and also intimating his agreement with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Office in respect of charge No. 1 asking him to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on the petitioner. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply and the Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the reply passed an order removing the petitioner from sen ice. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply and the Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the reply passed an order removing the petitioner from sen ice. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the charges draw up against the petitioner were false, fabricated and it is a pure case of malafide victimization of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, since the firm had returned the amount which was allegedly over-paid to the said firm by the petitioner, no loss had occurred to the Department and therefore, it cannot be said that the first charge stood proved. He further submitted that although quotations which were received earlier had cutting on it the purchase order which was prepared after receipt of the quotation w as correctly prepared by the petitioner and, therefore, the charge No. I is fals and could not be said to have been proved. He further submitted that crucial material witnesses namely Shri Johari Mal. Muneem and Shri Inder Sen were not examined in the departmental proceeding, when if examined would have proved the innocence of the petitioner. According to him, there is no material on record to give a finding of guilt against the petitioner. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner an having carefully considered the records available before me. I find that the enquiry report fully take note of the evidence produced in the enquiry proceeding and. the Enquiry Officer has come to categorical finding on the appreciation of the said evidence that charge No. I stood duly proved whereas, charge No. 2 is partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority has given detailed reasons as to why in his opinion, the second charge against the petitioner also stood amply proved. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion that the charge No. 2 is also amply proved, he has referred to the evidence on record, and on appreciation thereof has come to such a categorical finding. I have carefully looked into the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the appeal filed by the petitioner. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion that the charge No. 2 is also amply proved, he has referred to the evidence on record, and on appreciation thereof has come to such a categorical finding. I have carefully looked into the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the appeal filed by the petitioner. The said order contains reasons for coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is legal and valid and that there is no ground to interfere with the same. With regard to issue of non- examination of crucial witnesses. I find that Shri Johari Mal died prior to recording of evidence. If the petitioner thought that examination of Shri Inder Sen would have exonerated him from the charges he could have himself examined him as defence witness which was not done and. therefore, the said submission is devoid of any force. ( 7 ) IN a departmental proceeding, the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority should not be likely interfered with and could be so done only when the same are perverse or when there is procedural error on the face of the records. The jurisdiction of the Court in such matter is very limited and the Court is neither empowered to reappreciate the evidence, nor to come to a different finding than what is arrived at on such appreciation by the Departmental Authority. No such infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner showing that the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Appellate Authority are in any way perverse or that there is any procedural error apparent on the face of the records. I am not in a position to reappreciate the evidence on record as has been held in R. C. Chaturveili Vs. Union of India reported in JT 1995 (8) SC 65. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter. 1 cannot hold that there is any lacuna in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Appellate Authority. No procedural error in conducting the departmental enquiry could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 9 ) TOWARDS the conclusion of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a further submission that there is an inordinate delay in draw ing up the departmental proceeding. No procedural error in conducting the departmental enquiry could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 9 ) TOWARDS the conclusion of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a further submission that there is an inordinate delay in draw ing up the departmental proceeding. This point was never raised at any point of time either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority and is being raised for the first time at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. I have considered the materials on record and on appreciation thereof. I find that a CBI enquiry was conducted in respect of the aforesaid allegations and the said enquiry was completed on 29. 4. 1980 and charge-sheet was issued on 20. 10. 1982 after the matter was referred to Central Vigilance Committee and their report was obtained. Consequently, there is a plausible explanation in this regard on behalf of the respondents and this submission also has no merit. ( 10 ) IN the result, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.