Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 170 (HP)

Tilak Raj v. State of H. P.

2023-03-23

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of entire disciplinary proceedings alongwith the consequent action taken thereupon by the respondents against him, which culminated in his removal from service. 2. Facts 2(i) The petitioner was posted as Registration Clerk in Tehsil Office Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1995. An audit of accounts of this office was conducted by the audit party of the Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh in the year 1997. The audit party pointed out that an amount of Rs. 83,566/- collected by the petitioner as Registration Clerk of Tehsil Office Sarkaghat, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 09.06.1997 from various parties on different dates, had not been deposited in the Government treasury within the stipulated period. 2(ii) Memorandum of charge was issued against the petitioner on 02.07.1997. The charge levelled was that while serving as Registration Clerk, the petitioner had collected Rs.83,566/- on different dates w.e.f. 01.01.1997 to 09.06.1997 as Registration/Inspection fee from various parties, but did not deposit the same in Government Treasury till 15.05.1997 to 19.06.1997. The petitioner had misappropriated and embezzled the money for his personal gains. The petitioner furnished his reply on 21.10.1997, denying the charge. He also took up the stand that his actions were on the basis of the directions issued to him by the concerned Sub Registrar. 2(iii) Since the petitioner did not accept the charge, the respondent ordered for holding an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 16.12.1997. The petitioner handed a letter to the inquiry officer on 25.03.1998, admitting his guilt. In the aforesaid letter the delinquent officer-petitioner unequivocally accepted the charges levelled against him and submitted in writing that he alone was responsible for embezzlement of the amount. The amount mentioned in the charge sheet and additional amount in the nature of stamp duty of Rs.5870/- Rs.3780 and Rs.910/- were deposited by him beyond stipulated period. He also admitted that a sum of Rs.2500/-, collected for the District Relief Fund, was also deposited by him much after the stipulated period. After confessing his guilt, the petitioner requested in the letter to take a lenient view of the matter and to revoke his suspension. The petitioner did not stop there. He made a statement before the Inquiry Officer on 31.03.1998. After confessing his guilt, the petitioner requested in the letter to take a lenient view of the matter and to revoke his suspension. The petitioner did not stop there. He made a statement before the Inquiry Officer on 31.03.1998. In this statement, he reiterated and affirmed the contents of his previous letter furnished to the Inquiry Officer on 25.08.1998 and requested to drop the ongoing inquiry proceedings in view of his confession of the charge and admission of the guilt. 2(iv) The Inquiry Officer accordingly prepared the inquiry report, holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner for his comments. The petitioner in his reply submitted that he had accepted his guilt and hoped that the Authority would take lenient view of the matter so that his family does not suffer for his wrong doing. The Disciplinary Authority afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 14.08.1998. The petitioner accepted the charge before the Disciplinary Authority and prayed for leniency and forgiveness. The Disciplinary Authority held that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Government servant. Petitioner had shown tendency of being dishonest in the initial years of his service and brought disrepute to the office. The Disciplinary Authority deemed it fit to impose severe punishment to act as a deterrent to the other employees. Accordingly, on 20.07.1998, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Clerk. 2(v) The petitioner’s appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner Mandi, H.P. on 06.06.2000. The second appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue, H.P. on 10.04.2001. 2(vi) Against the imposition of penalty of removal from the service and dismissal of his first appeal by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi and further dismissal of the second appeal by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue, the petitioner instituted CWP(T) No.8351 od 2008. This writ petition was partly allowed on 02.12.2010 on the ground that second Appellate Authority had not passed speaking and reasoned order. The order passed on 10.04.2001, dismissing petitioner’s second appeal by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue, H.P., was quashed and set aside. This writ petition was partly allowed on 02.12.2010 on the ground that second Appellate Authority had not passed speaking and reasoned order. The order passed on 10.04.2001, dismissing petitioner’s second appeal by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue, H.P., was quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to re-hear petitioner’s appeal and decide the same afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. 2(vii) On remand of the matter, the Appellate Authority (Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue, H.P.) reconsidered the matter. Opportunity of personal hearing was also provided to the petitioner. Vide a detailed and speaking order passed on 05.11.2011, the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary Revenue, H.P. upheld the orders dated 20.07.1997 and 06.06.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Deputy Commissioner Mandi) and first Appellate Authority (Divisional Commissioner Mandi). The second appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking quashing of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, first Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority. Prayer has also been made for petitioner’s reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 3. I have heard learned counsel on both the sides and considered the case file. 4. Submissions & Observations 4(i) Non holding of inquiry Sh.H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner first contended that the respondents did not hold inquiry in accordance with law. The procedure mandated in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for holding inquiries was not followed. The petitioner could not have been indicted merely on the basis of his confessional statement. Reliance was placed on (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others.) There is no force in the aforesaid contention raised for the petitioner. Instant is a case where the delinquent (petitioner) initially denied the charge levelled against him. On account of that, the Disciplinary Authority deemed it fit to hold regular inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and accordingly on 16.12.1997 appointed an Inquiry Officer. Before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner of his own accord, on 25.03.1998 admitting in writing the charge levelled against him. He admitted that he alone was responsible for the embezzled amount in question, not only that, he even deposited the entire amount. Before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner of his own accord, on 25.03.1998 admitting in writing the charge levelled against him. He admitted that he alone was responsible for the embezzled amount in question, not only that, he even deposited the entire amount. Furthermore, the petitioner of his own volition gave in writing that apart from the amount mentioned in the charge-sheet, additional amounts of Rs.5870/-, Rs.3780/- and Rs.910/- towards stamp duty and Rs.2500/- towards District Relief Fund collected by him were deposited by him beyond the stipulated period. About a week later on 31.03.1998, the petitioner made a statement before the Inquiry Officer, reiterating the averments of his previous letter dated 25.03.1998. In his statement, he also requested the Inquiry Officer to drop the ongoing inquiry proceedings in view of his admission of guilt and confession of the charge. Once the delinquent employee admits the entire charge levelled against him individually and confesses to his guilt, there arises no question of continuation of the inquiry proceedings as his guilt in this situation stands admitted and the charge levelled against the employee stands proved. This is also the intention of Sub Rules 9 and 10 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which read as under: - “9. If the Government servant has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defense, appears before the Inquiring Authority, such Authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon. 10. The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government servant pleads guilty.” The petitioner had admitted his guilt, therefore, the Inquiry Officer was not required to go on conducting an unnecessary and futile inquiry. He was only to return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the delinquent pleaded guilty. In the instant case, there was only one charge levelled against the petitioner to which he pleaded guilty and accordingly Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 4(ii) On merits of matter and infraction of provisions. In the instant case, there was only one charge levelled against the petitioner to which he pleaded guilty and accordingly Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 4(ii) On merits of matter and infraction of provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the concerned Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar Sarkaghat, Mandi, were the persons who were responsible for depositing the collected amount in the Government Treasury. It was incumbent upon these officers to discharge their duties in accordance with the various provisions of the H.P. Registration Act. They failed to act as per mandate of the Act and made the petitioner a scapegoat. The dereliction of duties, if any, was on the part of these officers. Disciplinary proceedings were liable to be initiated against the officials actually responsible. The above submission also lacks substance. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 that the petitioner upto his first round of litigation had not raised any finger indicting any other official. Neither in his first appeal nor in his second appeal, petitioner pointed out that any other official was responsible for the charge levelled against him. So much so, in the previous writ petition instituted by him, respondents No.4 to 6, were not even impleaded as parties. In his letter dated 25.03.1998 submitted to the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner categorically stated that he alone was responsible for the embezzlement and none else was involved. That no one else had conspired with him in the embezzlement. He reiterated his version while making statement of his own volition on 31.03.1998 before the Inquiry Officer. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to now contend that he had been made a scapegoat and that disciplinary proceedings should have been held against other officials. In fact, one of his grounds taken before the Appellate Authority, was that he had admitted his guilt in writing with hope that the concerned Authority will take a lenient view of the matter. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and confessed the charge levelled against him. In view of his admission, there was no necessity for further proceeding with the inquiry. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and confessed the charge levelled against him. In view of his admission, there was no necessity for further proceeding with the inquiry. The alleged infraction of procedure contained in Rules 14, 15, 17 and 18, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, does not arise as there was no occasion for the Inquiry Officer to proceed further with the inquiry. 5. Conclusion Petitioner had admitted his guilt and confessed to the charge levelled against him before the Inquiry Officer not just in writing but also in his oral statement. Petitioner also requested the Inquiry Officer to drop the ongoing inquiry proceedings in view of admission of his guilt. The Inquiry Officer correctly proceeded further in accordance with law by preparing his inquiry report that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. The contentions now being urged about non holding of inquiry fade away in light of admission of guilt by the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer in furnishing his inquiry report based upon petitioner’s admission of charge was in accordance with Rule 14(9) & 14(10) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. There arises no question of infraction of procedure in holding the inquiry in the given facts. Petitioner had also furnished his response to the inquiry report. There had been no denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Principles of natural justice had been complied with. Once the charge against the petitioner stood established, it was for the Disciplinary Authority to take action in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate authorities took notice of the fact that the petitioner was not a novice, rather he had put in about seven years of service and was aware about the intricacies of the office procedure. He had shown dishonest tendency. His actions had brought disrepute to the office. It is well settled that scope of judicial review of the Disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The charge having been proved against the petitioner, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority affirmed concurrently by two Appellate Authorities with reasoned orders. No interference is called for. In view of the aforesaid findings, this petition lacks merit. The same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.