MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was Executive Engineer during the period 5.9.92 to 22.1.94 at PWD Division No. VI of Delhi Administration. At that time, construction work of Master Plan Road No. 43 was in progress. THE work was completed sometimes in the month of November, 1993. THE Final Bill of the work was prepared during the tenure of the applicant. THE applicant, on attaining superannuation age, retired from government service on 31.7.95.

(2.) After his retirement a charge-sheet was served upon the applicant vide memorandum dated 1.7.97, wherein it was alleged that the applicant as Executive Engineer did not test check the levels recorded for payment of earth work against item No. 1 (of SH: 1) in 7th Running Account Bill and failed to take note of sudden and substantial increase in the quantity of earth work for payment against the said item No. 1, with the result that the fictitious levels recorded by Shri O.P. Beri, Jr. Engineer, remained undetected, thereby leading to an over payment of Rs. 8,56,272/- and consequent loss to the Government. The applicant filed reply to the charge-sheet. Inquiry was held and ultimately vide order dated 12.2.2001 (Ann. A/3) penalty of 25% cut of the admissible pension for five years was imposed on the applicant. This order is under challenge in the instant O.A. The memorandum dated 1.7.97 and the memorandum dated 16.1.98 have also been challenged.

(3.) IN the counter, it is stated that the applicant had previously filed an Original Application challenging the memorandum dated 1.7.97 and the memorandum dated 16.1.98 and, therefore, this O. A. is not maintainable. It is denied that the charge levelled against the applicant is not established by the evidence produced during inquiry. It is stated that payment of the running account bills is made subject to the adjustment in the final bill and that the payment made on 6th RA Bill was not final and the payment of the Final Bill was made to the Contractor on 30.8.93 and, therefore, the order of the President was within four years of the event of misconduct. It is further stated that the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on assessment of the material on record and the Disciplinary Authority, in consultation with the UPSC, has considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before deciding the matter. It is prayed that the O. A. be dismissed.