S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) The Appellant herein was an Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi. As his father died in harness, he was appointed on compassionate grounds.
(2.) A raid by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was conducted in his house on 29th November, 1990. He was allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. A criminal case was initiated against him by the CBI. On or about 31-12-1991, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The charges framed against him were: "Article- I - That Shri Ranjit Singh during the year 1981-90 while working as a Government servant in the capacity of Inspector, Customs and Central Excise failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant inasmuch as he by exploiting his official position as a Government servant acquired assets to the tune of Rs. 6,43,737.15 in his own name and in the name of his family members which are disproportionate to the known sources to his income. During the abovesaid period his total income from all known sources comes to Rs. 5,54,924.10 p. and the expenditure comes to Rs. 1,92,676.83 and the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income come to the tune of Rs. 2,81,488.88 p. Thus, said Shri Ranjit Singh by his above acts of omission and commission contravened provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article - II - That Shri Ranjit Singh during the said period while functioning in the abovesaid capacity failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant asmuchas he invested Rs. 60,000/- in the purchase of FDRs in his own name as well as in the name of his mother Smt. Leelawanti in Punjab and Sind Bank, Vijayawada in 1981 without any intimation to his department/ Government as required under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
(3.) A closure report was submitted by the CBI on 20th July, 2001. In the departmental proceeding, the Appellant adduced evidences on his behalf as also cross-examined witnesses examined on behalf of the Department. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26-9-1996 exonerating him from the said charges. The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a memorandum on or about 17-2-1997 stating the reasons for his difference with the Enquiry Officer and called upon the Appellant to make his representation in his defence to the grounds of disagreement before a final decision is taken stating: "Any representation which he may wish to make against the tentative opinion will be considered by the undersigned independent of her tentative opinion. Such a representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than 10 days from the date of receipt of this memorandum." ;