UNION OF INDIA Vs. H L GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, who was working as Senior Accounts Officer was issued a notice on 01.01.1998 calling upon him to submit his explanation to the notice. Reply furnished was found not satisfactory and hence a charge sheet was issued to him on 07.07.1998 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules for a major penalty whereby following articles of charges were framed against him: Article I That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as Sr. Accounts Officer-in-Charge M. Section during the period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDA (HQRs), New Delhi, failed to discharge his duties effectively as provided for in Appendix I to Defence Accounts Department Office Manual Part I, which led to authorization of payment against 36 fraudulent claims as listed in Encl.I, to the tune of Rs. 42.24 lakhs approximately. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt. servants for the time being under his control and authority, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to detect that (i) fraudulent claims had been floated against fake sanctions purported to have been issued by Ministry of Defence/DGOS, (ii) the contingent bills had not been preferred by the officers of DGOS authorized to do so and (iii) appropriate procurement procedure relevant to the value of stores procured had not been followed. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO, failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed in the performance of his official duties in the exercise of powers conferred on him, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said H.L.Gulati, SAO authorized the payments of the 36 fraudulent claims to the tune of Rs. 42.24 lakhs approximately, as officer-in-charge M. Section although the expenditure as per the fake sanctions was debitable to the Revenue Head Ordnance stores and did not fall within the purview of M. Section as per Chapter VIII of OM Part XII and even without getting the local purchase bills noted in Accounts Section as required vide para 437 OM Part II Vol. I. Thus the said H.L. Gulati, SAO failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed to take all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt. servants for the time being under his control and authority, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 33(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article IV That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as Sr. Accounts Officer-in-Charge M. Section during the period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDA (HQrs), New Delhi, passed 36 fraudulent claims amounting to Rs. 42.24 lakhs approximately. Though the concerned bills related to Store Section, these were processed and passed for payment in the M. Section and without following the prescribed procedures. THE above act of Shri H.L.Gulati resulted in fraudulent payment to the tune of Rs. 42.24 lakhs approximately to the alleged suppliers and caused pecuniary loss to the Govt. THE above act indicates complicity with the alleged suppliers and also exhibits failure on the part of Shri Gulati to maintain absolute integrity. Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain absolute integrity and conducted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

(2.) THE respondent was also proceeded criminally vide FIR dated 20.05.1998 registered against him under Sections 120B/420/468/471/477A IPC and u/s 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Of course, in the said case the respondent was discharged as no evidence was found against him. Yet the respondent who retired on superannuation was called upon to face an inquiry as per Rule 9(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, as per the report of the Enquiry Officer the allegations against the respondent with regard to authorization of 36 fraudulent claims, non-following of the procedure by floating against fake sanctions, non-noting of purchase bills in the accounts section and non-following of the procedure, are instances of failure in maintaining absolutely integrity and conducting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. THE Enquiry officer, on the analysis of the evidence led before him concluded as follows: Article I Marginally proved Article-II Partially proved. Article-III Partially proved. Article-IV Not proved.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court. It has been submitted that in this case, the charges leveled against the respondent were proved before the inquiry officer. The gravamen of the charges leveled against the respondent goes to show that the respondent who was only supposed to deal with miscellaneous and contingent bills of M. Section, in total disregard of the provisions of Office Manuals, has processed the payments of 36 contingent bills to the tune of Rs. 42.24 lakhs viz. Ex.P/1/1 to Ex.P/1/36 all debitable to Major Head 110 stores for which he had no authority. The bulk of the expenditure which M. section is authorized to make payments for is to be booked to Minor Head 800-Other expenditure as per classification Handbook of Defence Services Receipt and charges. Any expenditure to be booked to Major Head 110 Stores is a deviation from what is described in the Manual and the M. section was not competent to do so. Thus, the charged officer failed to ensure that there was no unauthorized deviation from the procedure prescribed for Accounting and Auditing proving the charge that the charged officer failed to effectively discharge the general duties of A.O.