(1.) INSTANT Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th May, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. Precise flash back of the circumstances as have given rise to the instant lis is noticed hereunder. A Court of Enquiry was constituted to find out irregularities in maintaining the accounts of PCO fund of 166 Bn. CRPF and to pinpoint responsibilities. The Court of Enquiry submitted its proceedings to the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Greater Noida (U.P). On examination of the records, the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Greater Noida issued Office Order No. 1.X/2007 -EC -3 dated month of April, 2007. In the said order, the Deputy Inspector of CRPF, after noticing the facts as were established, has concluded as under: -
(2.) THE Inquiry Officer, on completion of inquiry, has concluded that the articles of charge Nos. I, II and IV were proved. Article of charge No. III was partly proved and No. V was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on second stage advice, as received from the Central Vigilance Commission dated 17.02.2011, has issued show cause notice to which the respondent has submitted his representation. Thereafter the matter has been referred by the Disciplinary Authority to the UPSC so as to decide the quantum of penalty to be imposed. Finally, the following penalty was imposed.
(3.) FIRST , it is contended that the learned Single Judge in the judgment has observed at para 9 that the Central Vigilance Commission vide order No. 008/MHA/009/119736 dated 17.02.2011, had advised for imposition of suitable 'minor penalty', show cause notice has been issued as to why minor penalty be not imposed. Sidelining the same, major penalty has been imposed. The observation is not in consonance with the record. The contention is right because letter No. 008/MHA009/119736 dated 17.02.2011 available on the records provides for imposition of 'major penalty' and not 'minor penalty'. The said observation, as such, is unsustainable.