STEPHEN GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, Stephen George has assailed the judgment dated 15th November, 2002 passed in OA No. 919/2002 by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his challenge to the order dated 15th September, 2000 of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from service in respect of charges leveled against him. The Central Administrative Tribunal also rejected the petitioner's challenge to the order dated 26th March, 2001 passed by the Controller of Defence Accounts, his Appellate Authority and the order dated 8th January, 2002 passed by the Deputy Controller General dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are in narrow compass and to the extent necessary are discussed hereafter.

(3.) The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Accounts Officer and was assigned the duties of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) in the M Section of the Controller of Defence Accounts with effect from 3rd May, 1994 to 16th May, 1995. It was alleged inter alia that 41 contingent bills were processed by the petitioner in violation of chapters VIII OM Part XII read in conjunction with chapters VI OM Part II Vol. 1; without effecting verification of the specimen signatures as required in the prescribed procedure and without scrutinizing the fake signatures on the bills. The petitioner processed payments of 41 bills totaling a sum of Rs. 7.35 crores. It was further alleged that the petitioner had not obtained orders of the appropriate authority and that the processing of the bills was without following prescribed procedure causing loss to the Government. It was further contended that the petitioner failed to ensure that budget allotment was available for effecting the procurement. In this background, by an order dated 17th November, 1998, the respondent proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on five Articles of charges. In support of the charges, having regard to the nature of transactions, it appears that the respondents relied only on documentary evidence and no oral evidence was led by the respondents. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence.