DHIRAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Deputy (Dy.) Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF') was served with a Presidential Memorandum dtd. 24/5/2007 on the following Charge:- ' MEMORANDUM The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant (IRLA 4246) of 89 Bn CRPF presently posted in O/O IGP CS CRPF Lucknow under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which .the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of Articles of charge (Annexure- I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II) . A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III & IV). ARTICLE-I That the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant while posted and functioning as Dy. Commandant / QM / MTO in 89 Bn CRPF committed an act of misconduct in that he collected some spare parts for Maruti car amounting to Rs,2,760/- through No .9 13155142 CT/Dvr Ram Bachan Singh of 89 Bn on 06/12(03 from M/S United Motor Stores, GT Road, Ferozepur Cantt and did not make any payment for the same for which the firm concerned approached the CRPF authorities. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar S ingh, Dy. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3( 1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II That the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant while posted in aforesaid Unit and functioning as QM/MTO of the Unit committed an act of misconduct in that on 05/ 10/03, he sent vehicle Regn. No. DIG -424 Tata Truck of 89, Bn for repairs for repairs of M/S Luxmi Machinery Stores, GT road , Ferozepur Cantt, whereas as per comparative statement approved by the competent authority on 22/09/03 , the said vehicle was to be repaired by M/S Mahavir General Store, GT Road, Ferozepur Cantt for which supply / work order was also give to the firm on 05/10/.03 under the signature of Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant being the QM/MTO of the unit. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, DY. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3( 1), (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III That the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant while posted in aforesaid Unit committed an act, of misconduct in that on 15/10/2003, he collected Rs.6,000.00 in cash from M/S Mahavir General Store, GT road, Ferozepur Cantt on the pretext of paying the same to MIS Luxmi Machinery Store, GT Road, Ferozepur Cantt for the portion of job work/ repair done by-them on vehicle Regn. No.DIG-424 but instead of paying the amount to M/s Luxmi Machinery Stores, Ferozepur Cantt., he retained the amount with him. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-IV That while posted and functioning as Accounts Officer in 89 Bn CRPF the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant committed a serious misconduct in that on 07/02/04, he collected Rs.11,400.00 from Shri R Gautam, Asstt. Commandant who had received 'the same from GC CRPF Jallandhar for meeting the expenditure in connection with function organized on the eve of presentation ceremony of B.est Ops Bn: trophy. Thereafter, he neither took the amount in Cash book nor maintained any account of the amount or deposited the unspent amount in the fund and kept the amount with him unauthorisedly. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a mannerr unbecoming of a Govt. servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1),(i), (ii) & (iii) orecs (Conduct) Rules, 1964.'

(2.) Upon receipt of aforesaid Memorandum dtd. 24/5/2007 on 8/1/2007, petitioner in his written statement dtd. 5/9/2007 denied the charges levelled against him. The enquiry proceedings were set into motion, wherein he participated assisted by his Defence Assistant. Evidence of nine prosecution witnesses was recorded, whereas no defence witness was produced by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer held that Article-I was proved; Article-III was partially proved; and Article ' II and IV were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority in agreement with the report of Inquiry Officer, sought advice from CVC. In agreement with the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, the CVC advised imposition of minor penalty upon the petitioner. Upon receipt of copy of Inquiry Report along with acceptance of the Disciplinary Authority as well as recommendation of the CVC vide letter dtd. 2/11/2011; petitioner made a representation dtd. 13/2/2012 against thereof. However, the same was rejected with the observation that no new facts or material to refute the charges were put forth by the petitioner and respondents consulted with the Union Public Service Commission ('UPSC') to decide the quantum of penalty.

(3.) After examination of the case of petitioner, UPSC observed that out of four Articles of Charge, Article -I stands fully proved and Article-III proved to a great extent and advised imposition of penalty of 'reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further directions that the Charged Officer will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay'.