- (1.) The petitioner before us, Diwan Singh Puri, was in the services of the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India on 05.02.1979 holding the post of Deputy General Manager, Surat Telecom District when he was served with a memorandum dated 22.11.1995 proposing to hold an inquiry against him. The memorandum enclosed the statement of imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour qua which inquiry was proposed alongwith article of charges. The article of charges read as under:- "That the said Shri Diwan Singh while functioning as TDM, Bhavnagar, during the period from 1992 to 1994, deliberately and with the malafide intention of favouring the party entertained tenders from three firms belonging to the same party, for the work of erection/dismantlement of lines and wires in Bhavnagar Secondary Switching Area during 1993-94, and, in collusion with S/Shri P.K. Saha, DE (SBP), P.V. Puranik, DE (M/W), and B.A. Patel, the then CAO, O/o TDM, Bhavnagar, who were Members of the Tender Evaluation Committee, awarded the work to M/s Singh Associates, Ahmedabad, being one of the three firms of the same party from whom the tenders had been received, at exorbitant rates, which were 3 to 4 times higher than the departmental standards and the rates of the same party for the same work approved by the said Shri Diwan Singh for the year 1992-93, thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage of Rs. 18,45,423/- to the said contractor and corresponding loss to the Department. Thus, by his above acts, the said Shri Diwan Singh committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening Rule 3(I)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. By order and in the name of the President."
(2.) The statement of imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour in support of article of charges annexed as Annexure-II to the memorandum reads as under:- "That the said Shri Diwan Singh was functioning as TDM, Bhavnagar, during the period from 1992 to 1994. 2. During the aforesaid period the said Shri Diwan Singh as the TDM, Bhavnagar, floated tender for the work of erection/dismantlement of lines and wires in Bhavnagar Secondary Switching Area during 1993-94, vide Notice Inviting Tenders No. MM/Tender/93-94/Genl. Dated 07.04.1993. Tenders were received from the following three firms:- 1. M/s M.R. Trading Company, D/2, Panch Rahi Apartment, Section II, Ranip, Ahmedabad. (Proprietor : Ragini Dirajlal Joshi). 2. M/s Narendra Sales & Services, Factory : 2306/2, Lashkarisheth Bldg., Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad. Head Office : 207, Shreeji Complex, Nr. Ellisbridge Post Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. (Proprietor : Baldevsingh Raghunathsingh Rajput). 3. M/s Singh Associates, 207, Shreeji Complex, Nr. Ellisbridge Post Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Factory : Lashkarisheth Bldg. Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad. (Proprietor : Ragini Dirajlal Joshi). 3. The three tenders received as aforesaid were opened by the DE (SBP), ACAO and AE (MM) of the O/o TDM, Bhavnagar, in the presence of representatives of the tenderers. 4. The following Income Tax Clearance Certificates were submitted alongwith the aforesaid tenders:- 1. Income Tax Clearance Certificate issued by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax No. S3/92- 93 dated 03.07.1992, showing Ragini Dhirajlal Joshi as Proprietor of M/s M.R. Trading Company, Ahmedabad. 2. Income Tax Clearance Certificate issued by Income Tax Officer dated 21.09.1990, showing Shri Baldevsingh Raghunathsingh Rajput as Proprietor of M/s Narendra Sales & Services, Ahmedabad. 3. Income Tax Clearance Certificate issued by Income Tax Officer dated 19.08.1991 showing Ragini Dhirajlal Joshi as Proprietor of M/s Singh Associates, Ahmedabad. 5. The said Shri Diwan Singh as the TDM constituted a Tender Evaluation Committee vide his letter No. 11/93-94/7 dated 11.05.1993, with himself as Chairman and the DE (SBP), ACAO, DE (M/W), DE (Admn.), and AO (Cash) as Members. 6. From the addresses of the three firms which submitted tenders, and from the Income Tax Clearance Certificates submitted by them, it is clear that all the three firms are related to each other and belong to the same party/proprietor. Moreover, the envelopes in which the tenders were received in the O/o TDM, Bhavnagar, are similar with same typewriting and correction in the same handwriting. As no other tenders were received in response to the Notice Inviting Tenders, the tenders received from the three firms which obviously belonged to the same party/proprietor, ought to have been rejected and fresh tenders invited. 7. Further, the validity of the Income Tax Clearance Certificates submitted by M/s Narendra Sales & Services and M/s Singh Associates dated 21.09.1990 and 19.08.1991, respectively, had already expired, as the Income Tax Clearance Certificates were valid only for one year from the date of issue. 8. However, the said Shri Diwan Singh as the Chairman of the Tender Evaluation Committee, entertained the three tenders submitted by the same party/proprietor, and finally accepted one of them, with the malafide intention of favouring the said party. The Tender Evaluation Committee under his Chairmanship had met on 14.05.1993 and recommended the rates of M/s Singh Associates, Ahmedabad, without any proper evaluation of the rates with reference to the departmental standards and the rates of the same contractor for the same work which had been approved for the year 1992-93. 9. The said Shri Diwan Singh was fully aware of the procedure to be followed for acceptance of tender and award of work, as he himself had followed the said procedure while awarding the work in 1992-93 vide notes and comparative statement in file No. MM/Tender/8/92-93. However, he as the Chairman of the Tender Evaluation Committee for the tenders received for the year 1993-94, deliberately did not advise the members of the Committee to follow the prescribed procedure by evaluating the rates quoted by the tenderers with reference to the departmental standards and the rates approved for the same work for the previous year, i.e., 1992-93 which were in fact lower than the departmental standards for most of the items. Finally the tender of M/s Singh Associates, Ahmedabad, was accepted and the work awarded to the said firm at rates which were 3 to 4 times higher than the departmental standards and the rates of the same party approved for the year 1992-93. 10. M/s Singh Associates, Ahmedabad, submitted 36 bills for a total of Rs. 28,44,865/- for the period from 30.09.1993 to 21.04.1994. A comparative statement showing the cost of items of work on the basis of approved rates of the said contractor and the cost as per departmental standards, shows that the total costs as per departmental standards would have come to only Rs. 9,99,442/- as against Rs. 28,44,865/- claimed by the contractor as per his aforesaid bills. 11. The said Shri Diwan Singh, thus, in collusion with the Members of the Tender Evaluation Committee, deliberately and with the malafide intention of showing undue favour to the party, accepted tenders from three firms of the same party and awarded the work to M/s Singh Associates, Ahmedabad, being one of the three firms of the same party from whom the tenders had been received, at very exorbitant rates, thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage of Rs. 18,45,423/- to the said contractor and corresponding loss to the department within a short period of seven months. 12. Thus, by his above acts, the said Shri Diwan Singh committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening Rule 3(I) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
(3.) The article of charges were denied by the petitioner, and, thus, one Sh. Rakesh Kumar then working as G.M.T. Nadiad was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. On completion of inquiry with evidence being led by both the parties, an inquiry report dated 11.11.1998 was submitted. The inquiry report after analysis of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties gave a finding that the article of charges were partly proved against the petitioner. The conclusions are extracted hereunder:- "9.1 The charge that all the tenderers belonged to the same party is proved. 9.2 The charge that tenders were not evaluated properly as per specifications, terms and conditions of tender is also proved. 9.3 It is not important to know exact loss, but the glaring irregularities, which were overlooked with impunity thus allowing for scope of loss to the department. Persons who were closely associated from beginning of the tendering process including S/Shri P.K. Saha, DE (SBP) and B.A. Patel, CAO, therefore, are accomplice with the charged officer Shri Diwan Singh for helping the contractor deliberately and with malafide intention. This charge is also proved. 9.4 The charge that rates were exorbitant which were 3 to 4 times higher than departmental standards is not proved. 9.5 The charge that rates were exorbitant, as compared to rates of same party for the same work approved by Shri Diwan Singh for the year 1992-93 is also not proved. 9.6 The charge that this has caused undue pecuniary advantage of Rs. 18,45,423/- to M/s Singh Associates, and corresponding loss to the department is partially proved as exact amount of loss needs to be reworked. Various cost have to be added to departmental rates as well as expenditure booked on maintenance work has to be reduced from the bills at Exhibit S-10." We would like to delve into a little more detail at this stage qua the findings of the inquiry report because to our mind they are crucial as both the sides rely upon the same inquiry report and the findings arrived therein. In effect, the finding is that the petitioner was required to be more careful and was negligent in scrutiny of the tenders with the result that the infirmities in submission of the tenders were not detected. Simultaneously, it is material to note that qua the financial implication of the same, the finding is that the charge of the rates being exorbitant and being 3 to 4 times higher than departmental standards was not proved, nor was it proved that these rates were exorbitant as compared to the previous year of 1992-93. In fact, the same contractor had been awarded the contract for the previous year of 1992-93 and, thus, this fundamental aspect was found in favour of the petitioner. Not only that, while observing that the charge of undue pecuniary advantage had been partially proved, it was observed that the exact amount of loss needed to be reworked which was never reworked and placed before any judicial forum including before us till date. Having made these observations qua the inquiry report, we proceed now to trace out the checkered history of the action taken pursuant to this inquiry report and the judicial scrutinies thereof.;