- (1.) The appellant was holding charge of the post of Senior Accounts Officer, in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, during the period 1992 to 1994, when it was discovered that 36 fraudulent claims came to be authorized by him, resulting in the unauthorised release of an approximate amount of Rs.42.24 lakhs.
(2.) The investigative process, indicated the involvement of large number of officers, including Lt. Col. Pakki Rama Shankar Rao. This led to the registration of a first information report bearing No.RC AC 11998 A0002 dated 20.05.1998 at police station CBI/SPE/ACU(I) District New Delhi. Eventually, a charge sheet bearing No.2 dated 6.9.1999 came to be filed, wherein the appellant was arrayed as accused no.1.
(3.) Simultaneously, with the initiation of criminal proceedings, the authorities issued a charge memo dated 7.7.1998 to the appellant, wherein he was accused of four articles of charge. The articles of charge levelled against the appellant are being extracted hereunder: "Article I That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as Sr.Accounts Officer- in-Charge 'M' Section during the period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDA (HQRS.), New Delhi, failed to discharge his duties effectively as provided for in Appendix 1 to Defence Accounts Department Office Manual Part I, which led to authorization of payment against 36 fraudulent claims as listed in Encl.I. to the tune of Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt. servants for the time being under his control and authority, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to detect that (I) fraudulent claims had been floated against fake sanctions purported to have been issued by Ministry of Defence/DGOS, (ii) the contingent bills had not been preferred by the officers of DGOS authorized to do so and (iii) appropriate procurement procedure relevant to the value of stores procured had not been followed. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO, failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed in the performance of his official duties in the exercise of powers conferred on him, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said H.L.Gulati, SAO authorized the payments of the 36 fraudulent claims to the tune of Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately, as officer- in-charge 'M' Section although the expenditure as per the fake sanctions was debitable to the Revenue Head "Ordnance stores and did not fall within the purview of 'M' Section as per Chapter VIII of OM Part XII and even without getting the local purchase bills noted in Accounts Section as required vide para 437 OM Part II Vol. I. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed to take all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt. servants for the time being under his control and authority, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 33(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article IV That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as Sr.Accounts Officer-in-Charge 'M' Section during the period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDS (Hqrs), New Delhi, passed 36 fraudulent claims amounting to Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately. Though the concerned bills related to Store Section, these were processed and passed for payment in the 'M' Section and without following the prescribed procedures. The above act of Shri H.L.Gulati resulted in fraudulent payment to the tune of Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately to the alleged suppliers and caused pecuniary loss to the Govt. The above act indicates complicity with the alleged suppliers and also exhibits failure on the part of Shri Gulati to maintain absolute integrity. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain absolute integrity and conducted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.";