- (1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 11th November, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 3683 (W) of 2002 by a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court. This said writ petition was filed challenging the legality and propriety of minor penalty of censure imposed on the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority on account of his failure to report two transactions concerning movable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of a member of his family in violation of relevant service Rule 3 of C.D.A. Rules.
(2.) The background of the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the appellant is that there was a search on 20.02.86 at the residence of the appellant on a Quarter No. 12/38D, 10C Township, Post:- Haldia Township. It was alleged amongst other that while working as Electrical Engineer during 1982-86, the appellant failed to give intimation to the management regarding the financial transaction as required under Rule 22(23) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation in respect of the following incidents as enumerated in the chargesheet Annexure - P/3 dated 01.02.1988. The same are quoted below:- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (Refineries & Pipelines Division) Haldia Refinery No. P/IRDE/7245 Dated: 01.02.1988 Sri Swapan Haldar Sr. Electrical Engineer Emp. No. 71458 P & U Department CHARGE SHEET It is alleged that you, while working as Electrical Engineer during 1982 - 86, failed to give intimation to the Management regarding financial transactions, as required under Rule 22(3) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation, in respect of the following instances: 1) A plot of land at S-164 Greater Kailash, New Delhi, of the value of Rs. 8,000/- was gifted to you and your brothers by your great grandfather. 2) You took a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from Shri. A. C. Jana, under secretary in the National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development, New Delhi for construction of a house thereon. 3) You gave a Power of Attorney for construction of your father to deal and act on your behalf for construction of the house on the said plot NO. S-164, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. You also authorised your father to construct the house on the said plot and operate the account on your behalf on which more than Rs. 8 lakhs were spent. 4) You along your brother, applied for a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the LIC and a sum of Rs. 1.90 lakhs was paid by the LIC as follows: Rs. 1 lakh on 28.03.85 by cheque no. 171385 Rs. 50,000/- on 4.7.85 by cheque No. 171730 Rs. 25,000/- on 30.4.85 by cheque no. 171490 Rs. 15,000/- on 30.6.85 This amount was used for the construction of the house. 5) The construction of the hosue was started in 1982 and completed in 1986. An advance of Rs. 1.44 lakhs was taken from M/s. Cummins Diesels Sales and Service (I) Ltd. from 1985 to 1986 vide various receipts signed by your father on your behalf and by your brother. 6) Repayment of loan of Rs. 36,252.70 to the LIC was made by you and your brothers as follows: i) Receipt No. 28223 dated 29.06.85 ii) Receipt No. 28355 dated 8.7.85 iii) Receipt No. 188 dated 28.12.85 7) A sum of Rs. 1.44 lakhs was paid to Sri. Shanker Lal, Contractor in 1985 by your brother for the construction of house on S-164, G Kailash is as under:- 1) Vide receipt dated 15.5.83 Rs. 73,000/- 2) Vide receipt dated 23.9.83 Rs. 48,000/- 3) Vide receipt dated nil Rs. 23,000/- But you intimated the management that it was still a plot. 8) The house was under construction in 1983-84 and 1984-85 also. Lakhs of rupees were spent on its construction. You did not intimate the management about this as required under the rules. In view of the above, you have committed misconduct by failing to maintain devotion to duty and committed acts unbecoming of a public servant, and thereby contravened rule 22(3) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation. A copy of the list of documents by which and lit of witnesses by whom charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed. You are hereby directed to submit your explanation in writing to the charges of misconduct stated above by 02-02-88. In case of your failing to submit the explanation to offer and further disciplinary action will follow. The receipt of this charge-sheet may be acknowledged on the subjoined form, Sd/- (S. N. Sarkar) 1.2.88 Chief General Manager
(3.) After due enquiry the Disciplinary Authority from that article of Charge No. 2 to 8 were proved and the rest charges were not proved.;