2024 (3) TMI 396 - HC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - lack of devotion to duty - violation of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - HELD THAT - Neither the inquiry report nor the order of punishment dated 26th April, 2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority has recorded any finding about doubtful integrity of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority in his order, on the other hand, records a categorical finding that the charge of lack of integrity against the Charged Officer could not be substantiated . It is also to be noticed that even the Inquiry Officer has not found any such material on record which would lead him to doubting the integrity of the petitioner; the finding rather is that there was no malice or mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner and further that there was no allegation of any corrupt practice or extending undue benefit to the importer, against the petitioner. Accordingly, neither is there any material nor any finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority about doubtful integrity of the petitioner even qua the conduct of the petitioner which became subject matter of disciplinary proceeding against him. To charge and punish a government servant for violation of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Conduct Rules, 1964, it should be proved that the officer concerned has failed to maintain absolute integrity. Since there is nothing on record which even remotely suggest that petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity, no punishment on that count will be permissible against him. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer as also by the Disciplinary Authority are otherwise - in this view of the matter the petitioner in the instant case cannot be said to have found to have failed to maintain absolute integrity. So far as Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Conduct Rules, 1964 is concerned, it mandates that every government servant shall at all times maintain devotion to duty and any breach thereof will amount to misconduct - So far as the facts in the instant case are concerned, there is nothing on record; neither is there any finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was habitual of failing in performance of the tasks assigned to him within the timeframe for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him. The petitioner was charged for solitary act of cancellation of bonds and bank guarantees without proper scrutiny and verification of documents put up before him, however, the explanation given by the petitioner was that he cancelled the bonds and bank guarantees on the recommendation of the Appraisal Officer. Apart from the solitary incident in terms of the charge memorandum, nothing is available on record which may establish the charge of the petitioner having failed habitually in performance of the tasks assigned to him. Any penalty under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1972 can precipitate in two circumstances, namely, (i) if a government servant is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence and (ii) such misconduct causes pecuniary loss to the government. From a perusal of the Inquiry Officer s report as also the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the punishment order dated 26th April, 2013, breach of either Rule 3(1)(i) or 3(1)(ii) or 3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules, 1964 is not made out. There is no finding on record relating to pecuniary loss caused on account of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in the order of punishment dated 26th April, 2013. In absence of finding of proof of charge of pecuniary loss to the government and also because on the basis of material available on record of the departmental proceeding, no breach of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules, 1964 is found, the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 26th April, 2013 inflicting punishment of recovering 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years, in our opinion, is not sustainable. The order of punishment dated 26th April, 2013 is hereby quashed - writ petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 26th April, 2013 imposing the punishment of withholding 10% of monthly pension for three years.
2. Judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the challenge to the punishment order.
3. Allegations of misconduct against the petitioner under Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. Applicability of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Punishment Order:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 26th April, 2013, which imposed the punishment of withholding 10% of his monthly pension for three years. The punishment was based on charges of erroneously canceling three bank guarantees without proper scrutiny, failing to notice unauthorized extensions for re-export, and failing to supervise subordinates effectively.

2. Tribunal's Judgment:
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the punishment order on 23rd January, 2020. The petitioner contended that the punishment was illegal due to the absence of findings of loss to the government, doubtful integrity, or allegations of corruption.

3. Allegations of Misconduct:
The petitioner faced three charges:
- Charge I: Erroneously canceling three bank guarantees without proper scrutiny.
- Charge II: Failing to notice unauthorized extensions for re-export and non-realization of differential duty.
- Charge III: Failing to supervise subordinates effectively.

The Inquiry Officer found no evidence of mala fide intent or corruption by the petitioner. The officer concluded that the petitioner exhibited a lack of devotion to duty but did not fail to maintain absolute integrity or act unbecoming of a government servant.

4. Applicability of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1972:
The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1972, which applies in cases of grave misconduct causing pecuniary loss to the government. However, the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority found no evidence of pecuniary loss or breach of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), or 3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules, 1964.

Court's Decision:
The court held that the punishment was not sustainable due to the lack of findings on pecuniary loss or breach of the Conduct Rules. The court quashed the punishment order dated 26th April, 2013, and the Tribunal's judgment dated 23rd January, 2020. The writ petition was allowed, and the consequences were to follow accordingly. There were no orders as to costs.