RAKESH MEHRA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 20.3.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2733/2013. The said original application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal, wherein he had assailed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents; the punishment order dated 9.3.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner from services; as well as the order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing his departmental appeal.

(2.) The petitioner was proceeded against on a charge which substantially was that he, in collusion with others, had embezzled funds to the tune of Rs.1,75,000.00 and Rs.3,16,354.00. This had been done in collusion with Sh. Rajesh Rastogi, Ex-LDC of Pension Cell by manipulating the case of payment of pensionary benefits in respect of one late Sh. Om Prakash, Lab Technician, C.N.Centre. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had received the said amount in his own name by two cheques and he had deposited the same in his account. He had, thereafter dealt with the said amount. The statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior against the petitioner was that the payment was made by preparing duplicate pensionary benefits papers i.e death gratuity payment papers/bills in respect of late Sh. Om Prakash, Lab Technician, to the extent of Rs.9,82,709.00 comprising of two bills of the amounts of Rs.6,32,709.00 and Rs.3,50,000.00. The modus operandi was to pay the amount in the accounts of the other similarly named persons, who were also employees of the respondent-institute, namely, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, UDC and the petitioner Sh. Rakesh Mehra, Hospital Attendant. Pertinently, late Sh. Om Prakash Lab Technician had two sons namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar Tanwar and Sh. Rakesh Kumar Tanwar.

(3.) The detailed enquiry followed, wherein the departmental witnesses were examined. The petitioner/delinquent official did not lead any evidence in his defence. The defence of the petitioner was that he had been made victim in the whole episode, and the main culprits have been allowed to go scot-free. He alleged that the concerned official changed the name of the actual beneficiary Mr. Rakesh Tanwar to Mr. Rakesh Kumar and then to Mr. Rakesh Mehra in the pension bills/cheques. Pertinently, the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the amounts were, in fact, deposited by him in his account and the same were also withdrawn from the said account. In this back ground the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, inter alia, were as follows:-