- (1.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 23.05.2001 under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, while he was working as a Treasurer at Pehowa, by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra Division, vide Annexure P3. The Statement of Articles framed against the petitioner reads as thus:- "That the said Shri Kapoor Chand while working as Treasurer Pehowa on 24.04.2001 kept postage stamps & stationery and also revenue stamp of Rs.2541/- (Rs. Two thoughsand Five Hundred forty one Only) less than these shown in the stamp balance register maintained for the day as prescribed vide note 3 below rule 65 (1) of P&T FHB Vol.II. By the aforesaid act he is alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant thereby violating the provisions of rule 3 (I) (i) & 3 (i)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Sd/- Supdt. Post Offices Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra-13618" P.C.Kashyap, ASPO (Head Quarters), Kurukshetra, was appointed as Inquiry Authority to probe the charges against the petitioner. As is discernible from the records, the petitioner was afforded due and adequate opportunity to participate in the inquiry and he indeed did. On a consideration of the evidence i.e., oral and documentary, the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct and the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to have been proved, vide a detailed inquiry report dated 22.11.2001 (Annexure P4).
(2.) A copy of the inquiry report was made available to the petitioner and he was afforded an opportunity to file his response, if any, to the same. On a consideration of the matter in its entirety and the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, arrived at a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved beyond doubt. And the same being extremely grave in nature, as it involved misappropriation of Govt. money and casts doubt on the integrity of the official, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, vide order dated 17.06.2002 (Annexure P5).
(3.) It would be apposite, at this juncture, to refer to the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, which reads as thus:- "I have gone through the charge sheet oral and documentary evidence and written briefs submitted by PO and CO and there are discussed below: That shortage of stamps and stationery worth Rs.2541/- has been proved from the Ex. P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 as well as the deposition of S/Sh. Faquir Chand PW-1, H.P.Sharma, PW-2 and S.S.Papneja PW-3. Moreover the CO has not denied this fact in his defence statement dated 26-09-2001 as well as in his written briefs. So, in view of the admission of these facts by the CO, there is no need to discuss these facts in details. C.O. has argued that shortage was for a period of about half an hour which was accidental and unintentional as the reason of shortage was that he had handed over the stamps and stationery to Sh Raj Kumar EDSV who did not give the value of that to the CO not he (CO) demanded it. In this regard it is pointed out that Sh. Raj Kumar DW-1 in his deposition dated 26.09.2001 before the IO has vehemently stated that his statements Ex.D-2 and D-3 were not written with his free consent, he did not obtain stamps Rs.2541/- and that fact of taking stamps Rs.2541/- from the CO on 24-04-2001 as written in Ex D-2 and D-3 are not correct. IN view of this denial of the facts by Sh. Raj Kumar DW-1 the above argument of the CO that he had handed over the stamps and stationery to Sh. Raj Kumar is nothing but an after thought and thus not believable. Moreover, it was his duty to take the case for the stamps and stationery sold to Sh. Raj Kumar or any other person and if he failed to do so he is definitely responsible for the shortage. No application/document regarding promise of Sh. Raj Kumar DW-1 in writing to pay back the amount in two installments made before the whole staff as discussed in the written briefs has been brought on records by the CO during the course of inquiry, so no cognizance of the same can be taken by the IO. In view of the above discussion no doubt is left in providing the allegations contained in article-I. 7. Findings:- On the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry and my reasons recorded above, the charge contained in Article- I is held to be fully proved. Sd/- (P.C.Kashyap) Inquiry Officer and ASPO (HQ) Place Kurukshetra Kurukshetra. Dated 22-11-2001";