LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-181

MAJOR SURESH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 29, 2008
MAJOR SURESH RANA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Ordnance corps on 22. 12. 1979 and was sent on deputation to DGAR, Shillong on 01. 01. 1992. The petitioner during the said deputation period was posted as Joint Assistant director (Provisions) with HQ, DGAR and was entrusted with the duty of provisioning of general stores and clothing for the troops of Assam Rifles. In performance of his duties, requirements used to be received from the Maintenance groups of the Assam Rifles for about 70 major items, which were dealt with by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was the junior-most officer in the directorate and was serving directly under the officers of the rank of Colonel, brigadier and Major General. The Directorate is headed by a Director General of the rank of Lieutenant General and all financial powers are vested with the director General or his nominee being the Deputy Director General. Thus, all purchases were required to be sanctioned by the Director General or his nominee and at the relevant stage of time, it was the Deputy Director General, who was entrusted with the said task.

(3.) THE controversy has arisen on account of one such transaction pertaining to purchase of Hessian cloth, which is used as packing material by the troops for movement and packing purpose. On receipt of the requirement for this item by the Directorate from the Maintenance Group, indent was placed for purchase of the same from the DGSandd as it was not available in the Army. The indent did not receive any response resulting in a decision being taken for local purchase from the open market and tenders were invited after following standard procedure, which was placed before the Board of Officers. The petitioner was not a member of the Board of Officers nor did he take part in the deliberations. The recommendations of the Board of Officers were placed before the Deputy director "q" and the Deputy Director General, who approved the same and the item was procured. It appears that a Court of Inquiry was instituted in respect of the procurement of the said Hessian cloth, which was not a critical item. It was further alleged that the petitioner had obtained the sanction of higher authorities without projecting the stock position as well as not projecting the minimum escapable requirement.