- (1.) DILIP Gupta, J. The petitioner who was working as the Special Treasury Accountant in the Government Treasury at District Jalaun has challenged the order dated 26th November, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun dismissing him from service. The order dated 15th July, 1999 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has also been challenged and the consequential relief for disbursement of arrears of salary and arrears of pension has also been sought.
(2.) A charge-sheet dated 20th July, 1988 containing four charges was served upon the petitioner. The first charge was that even though the pensioner Smt. Beena Devi was receiving extraordinary pension of Rs. 15/- per month yet even in the absence of any order for revision of pension, the petitioner, in clear violation of the rules prepared the pension revision voucher for Rs. 7,632. The second charge was that even in the absence of the disbursal half slip the petitioner prepared the voucher of Rs. 7,632 merely on the basis of the pensioner half slip. The third charge was that in the pensioner half slip amount of Rs. 1,632 was mentioned whereas in the other document maintained in the office, the petitioner had mentioned an amount of Rs. 7,632/ -. The last charge was that when the aforesaid facts came to the knowledge of the authorities, the petitioner deposited Rs. 7,632 in the treasury. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge- sheet on 5th August, 1988. The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed Enquiry Report holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. In respect of the first charge, it was observed that the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the fact that the lady pensioner was being given extraordinary pension, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that from the various entries made in the pension payment order, it was clear that the pensioner was receiving extraordinary pension. In respect of the second charge the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that even in the absence of the disbursal half slip, the petitioner had prepared the arrears voucher merely on the basis of the pensioner half slip which was contrary to the rules. In respect of third charge the Enquiry Officer observed that with a view to misappropriate the amount, the petitioner had mentioned an amount of Rs. 7,632 in the office records even though in the pensioner half slip, only Rs. 1,600 was mentioned and this was the amount which was actually paid to the pensioner instead of Rs. 7,632. The fourth charge was also found to be proved inasmuch as the lady pensioner had only returned the amount of Rs. 1,600 and the petitioner himself deposited Rs. 7,632/- after making good the deficiency. The appellate authority has, after considering the matter, by a detailed order rejected the appeal. I have heard Sri Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) SRI Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the entire amount had been deposited, no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government and, therefore, the order of dismissal was bad in law and in any case the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. He also submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner do not constitute a charge of misconduct as it was the case of mere mistake or negligence. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the Enquiry Officer after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner found all the charges to be proved and it cannot be said to be a case of mere negligence or mistake. He further urged that the act of the petitioner not only caused pecuniary loss to the Government but it also amounted to cheating the illiterate lady pensioner as only Rs. 1,600 was paid to her as against the amount of Rs. 7,632 that was mentioned in the record of the office that had been prepared by the petitioner. He further submitted that mere deposit of amount when the act was noticed by the higher authorities would not absolve the petitioner and in such a case where financial implications are involved, the order of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of offence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of mere mistake was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. A perusal of the Enquiry Report and the order of dismissal clearly shows that the reply submitted by the petitioner had been carefully examined but was not accepted. There was no occasion for the petitioner to himself revise the pension in the absence of any order and that too in respect of a person who was receiving extraordinary pension of Rs. 15/- per month only. The case set up by the petitioner that the pension payment order did not indicate that it was a case of extraordinary pension was not accepted as the said document clearly exhibited that it was a case of extraordinary pension. In such circumstances it cannot be said to be a case of mere mistake. In fact, there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to not only confer benefit upon the lady pensioner but also to confer benefit upon himself as not only was the amount of pension revised at a higher rate but the lady pensioner was also only paid Rs. 1,600/- as against the indicated amount of Rs. 7,632/ -.;