JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. EX. ASI (MIN.) SHIV KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Ex. Asi (Min.) Shiv Kumar
Click here to view full judgement.
Manmohan Sarin, J. -
(1.) PETITIONER , Joint Commissioner of Police, through this writ petition seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 1.12.2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1191/2005. Vide the impugned order, petitioner was directed to forthwith reinstate the respondent Shiv Kumar in service. Tribunal held that the respondent be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances as per Fundamental Rules.
(2.) BRIEF Facts of the case are:
i) Respondent had applied for non refundable loan of Rs.75,000/ - from his GPF Account No. 35892 while posted in Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura. The loan application was processed in Accounts Branch, CWC, Nanak Pura and sent to Police Headquarters from where sanction order was received on 8.1.2001. On the basis of the sanction order, bill was passed and Rs. 75,000/ - were drawn and disbursed to respondent vide Bill No. 190 against proper receipt on 9.1.2002.
ii) Respondent again applied for refundable loan for Rs.1,20,000/ - from his GPF Account on 4.4.2003 without disclosing the factum of availing of the first loan of Rs.75,000/ -. The case was again processed by Accounts Branch and sent to PHQ from where the sanction order was received on 17.4.2003. The amount was disbursed to the respondent by Accounts Branch by cheque No. 223451 on 2.5.2003 against proper receipt.
iii) A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the Respondent vide order dated 28.8.2003 under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980. It is alleged that the respondent had removed the page of his GPF Pass Book on which entry was made by the PAO about withdrawal and payment of Rs. 75,000/ - to him. It was further alleged that he manipulated and managed a GPF balance of Rs. 1,52,265/ - for the year 2001 -2001 wherein withdrawal of Rs. 75,000/ - was not mentioned despite the fact that a column existed in balance sheet format regarding the withdrawals. It was alleged that he managed the entries in his GPF Pass Book from the period 03/2001 to 10/2001 about the details of his monthly subscription which as per rules are done by accounts branch only but entries in deduction column from March 2001 to October 2001 were not made by the Accounts Branch in his GPF Pass Book.
iv) Departmental enquiry was entrusted to inspector Ram Singh, Departmental Enquiry Cell. Enquiry Officer completed its proceedings and submitted his findings on 27.2.2004 concluding therein that the charge against the respondent was fully proved. Copy of the findings of enquiry officer was served upon the respondent on 6.4.2004 to which he submitted his reply on 20.4.2004
v) After going through the findings of enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 2.6.2003 concluding as under
It was proved without doubt that GPF passbook was with the respondent because this was his copy and every employee keeps it with himself or herself. Since, only respondent was the beneficiary of the amount, nobody else had any motive to make any changes in the GPF Passbook or misrepresent his case with the PHQ, etc. He was aware that his GPF Account did not have the applied amount and, Therefore, he had willfully put up the case for withdrawal of amount which was not due to him. The charges of malafide and withdrawal of funds, although his own, by misrepresenting the facts are proved.
The Disciplinary Authority, Therefore awarded him punishment of forfeiture of 2 years approved service permanently
vi) On 18.7.2004 Respondent filed an appeal against the order of punishment. Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority was not in proportion and commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. The Appellate Authority in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 25(1)d of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980, disagreeing with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 21.2.2005 for removal from service, which was received by respondent on 1.3.2005. Objections were filed by the respondent to the show cause notice.
vii) Appellate Authority after going through the objections raised by the respondent to the show cause notice enhanced the punishment to removal from service vide order dated 21.4.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed an OA No. 1191/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the order passed by appellate authority. The Tribunal, vide order dated 1.12.2006, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service and further held that the respondent be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances as per Fundamental Rules. Hence the Present Petition by Joint Commissioner of Police.
Petitioner submitted that the time when the respondent had applied for second loan of Rs. 1,20,000/ -, the maximum balance that could have been available in the GPF Account of the respondent would be Rs. 68,980/ - only. He submitted that because of the manipulation and fabrication of documents by or at the behest of the respondent GPF passbook did not indicate that an amount of Rs. 75,000/ - had been withdrawn by the respondent on 9.1.2002. Petitioner contends that the page containing the entry was surreptitiously removed by or on behalf of respondent.
(3.) PETITIONER submitted that it was proved without doubt that GPF passbook was with the respondent. This was his copy and every employee keeps it with himself/herself. Respondent was the only beneficiary of the amount and nobody else had any motive to make any changes in the GPF passbook or misrepresent facts with PHQ etc. Petitioner further urged that the respondent was aware that his GPF account did not have the amount applied for and Therefore he had willfully put up the case for withdrawal of amount which was not due to him at the time when regular staff handling the account was on leave.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.