MAMTA RANI SUB INSPECTOR FOOD AND SUPPLIES Vs. GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI THROUGH THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND THE COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN present OA, basically two legal questions arise for consideration namely whether the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT, Delhi was the disciplinary authority of applicant and rightly issued impugned order dated 10.1.2003 and secondly, whether the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi was justified in imposing enhanced punishment vide order dated 18.8.2004.

(2.) Factual matrix of case is that applicant was appointed as DASS Grade-IV in 1992. While functioning as Sub-Inspector in Food & Supplies Department, she was entrusted some job of Inspector (HQ) by Food & Supplies Officer, Circle No. 22. On 02.8.1999, six application forms for issuing new permanent ration cards were submitted in Circle No. 22, Bawana by one Shri Rajesh Kumar Dabas. Said forms were produced before her on said date. She accepted these forms for verification by altogether ignoring contents of application forms and without inspecting documents enclosed, the same were registered in FDR (A) register at serial No. 991-996. After diarying these forms, acknowledgement slips were issued to said individual, whose name neither appeared as HOF nor as member of family in any of application forms. On receipt of these application forms, applicant instead of physically verifying the correctness of facts stated therein, gave directions to Sh. Nand Lal, SCC of the Circle for verifying the facts in respect of all the above six applications. Sh. Nand Lal, SCC after his visit and recording the statements report back to her. Thereupon, she gave her written report on the backside of each of application forms recommending therein issue of permanent ration cards. After taking approval of FSO, cards were subsequently issued under her signature. A cursory look on above application forms reveals that complete addresses were not indicated on any of those application forms e.g. one of the applications with diary No. 994 dated 02.8.1999 shows Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta as applicant while Smt. Sharda Aggarwal as his wife. Sh. M.A. Khan, R.K. Gauba, J.R. Narayan, M.K. Gupta were described as sons of said Devender Kumar Gupta. Likewise in application form bearing No. 995, Sh. Omesh Saigal had been described as resident of Bawana and brother in law of Smt. Sheela Dixit. Applicant was placed under suspension on 02.9.1999. A charge memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued on 10.4.2000, which contained two articles of charge. Allegations made were denied and therefore an oral enquiry was held by appointment of enquiry officer. Suspension was revoked on 07.3.2001. Enquiry officer submitted his report on 07.10.2002, which was made available to her for making representation, which was submitted on 24.10.2002. A penalty of stoppage of three increments w.e.f. 01.2.2003 had been imposed by Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order dated 10.1.2003. An appeal against aforesaid penalty was preferred on 28.2.2003. During pendency of said appeal vide memorandum dated 05.5.2004, Lieutenant Governor, Delhi issued show-cause notice for enhancement of said punishment, to which reply was submitted on 07.6.2004. After considering said reply, Lieutenant Governor, Delhi enhanced penalty to deduction by four stages with cumulative effect for five years vide order dated 18.8.2004. Said orders have been impugned in present proceedings.

(3.) CLAIM laid was resisted by respondents by filing detailed reply, stating that as a part of duty applicant was supposed to personally visit the given address and verify the factum of residence in addition to members of family residing therein. While accepting application forms for permanent ration cards for verification, she ignored the contents of said form and recommended for issuance of permanent ration cards without verifying the facts stated therein and, therefore, she committed gross misconduct, for which she has been rightly penalized. It was wrong to suggest that charges were vague and lack in material or defective, as alleged. Enquiry officer had proved the charge against her during the course of enquiry based on material & evidence brought on record. Findings of enquiry officer were neither perverse nor biased; enquiry was conducted in accordance with law governing the same. No common proceedings were held and thus there was no question of violation of Rule 18 of said rules. Order passed by Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT, Delhi is fully justified. Shri S.C. Sharma, FSO was co-accused along with applicant and disciplinary authority in his case was the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT, Delhi. Therefore, applicant was chargesheeted 'by the higher disciplinary authority so that proceedings could be held simultaneously though separately', was the stand taken in reply. Since proceedings were instituted by the Chief Secretary being higher disciplinary authority, said authority was competent to impose penalty upon her also. She was given a fair opportunity to represent her case at all times during the course of enquiry and otherwise. Disciplinary / appellate authority passed reasoned & speaking order, duly considering all contentions raised before passing impugned orders.