SH. VIVEKANAND SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as LDC with the respondent since December, 1984. On 4.1.1985 he was posted in Delhi Lotteries, being run by DDA. He was given duty of sales officer in Delhi Lotteries with effect from 28.9.1986 at its camp office situated in the Vijaya Bank Branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi. While working as Sales Officer, he was charged sheeted and the following charges were framed against him: Shri Vivekanand Singh while working as LDC/Sales Officials of Delhi Lotteries during the year 1987 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as:

(2.) A departmental inquiry was conducted and in the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that charges under Article I and III have been proved against the petitioner. However, in respect of Article II, it was found that the conduct of the petitioner had caused financial losses to the DDA to the tune of Rs. 1,65,151.80, but there was no embezzlement of Government money in the sense that any part of this money was not misappropriated by the petitioner for his own use. This amount was due to be recovered from local dealers/agents to whom lottery tickets had been sold by the petitioner on credit despite a written order dated 9.12.1986 directing all the officers to ensure that tickets were not sold on credit.

(3.) AFTER completion of disciplinary inquiry, the competent authority passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service following due procedure. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.1.1991. The petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 990/92 before this Court challenging the order of Appellate Authority upholding his dismissal from service. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Appellate Authority had not recorded detailed reasons in the order rejecting appeal of the petitioner and in coming to conclusion that the dismissal was justified. It was observed that the Appellate Authority should have considered the representation of the petitioner and should have given reasons for rejecting the representation and upholding the dismissal. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for considering the entire matter afresh, without being prejudiced in any manner by its earlier order which was set aside. After the matter was remanded back, the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order dated 2.5.1996 upholding the decision of dismissal of the petitioner, giving reasons for the conclusion. The petitioner has again approached this Court assailing the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that it was bad in law. No negligence of the duty could be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner was merely a LDC who could not have been given the duty of selling lottery tickets. He had not violated the scheme of lottery tickets, while selling the same on credit. The subsequent instructions issued by the respondent for maintenance of accounts in the manner in which they were to be maintained clearly shows that there was no such instructions prior to 3r October, 1988 when such instructions were issued. The written instructions issued on 9.12.1986 prohibiting the sale of tickets on credit also shows that prior to 9.12.1986, tickets were being sold on credit and the petitioner had not done something wrong by selling tickets on credit. The petitioner was working under the supervision and control of other officers like Account Officer and Superintendent and they were equally responsible for sale of tickets on credit. It was also pleaded that there was an outstanding credit of Rs. 4,76,89,659/ - as per the audit report for the year 1987 -88 which proved that not only the petitioner but all other Sales Officers were selling tickets on credit, otherwise, this amount could not have been outstanding. There was an established practice of sale of lottery tickets on credit basis to the registered dealers, as the registered dealers used to have security deposit with the respondents. The petitioner was not accountable for non -maintaining and non -redemption of the detailed account of sale of lottery tickets against the sale of tickets on credit as he had not received any formal training in accounts.