9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was also held responsible for such misappropriation. Separate enquiry was conducted against him and he was also punished Merely because, the lesser punishment is imposed on him, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have imposed the same punishment on the petitioner also. The punishment depends on the gravity of the proved charge. Since, it is found that the petitioner has not maintained a separate account for non-Government money related to recovery from salary of the staff not verified the daily balance; not recovered cash and as such he did not keep the cash in safe custody on day to day basis, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly concluded that the petitioner is liable for punishment as imposed by it. The D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds the concerned head. One Mr. V.L. Simon - the Administrative Officer (A.O.), who was handling the cash, also faced the enquiry independently. The petitioner as well as said Simon were jointly and severally accountable for the misappropriation of cash to the tune of ₹ 3,46,398/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Eight Only). It is further charge against the petitioner that he was displayed lack of integrity and devotion to duty in terms of Sub-rule 1(i) and (ii) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 ('Conduct Rules' for short) and that he has also acted in a manner unbecoming of a Goverment servant in terms of Sub-rule 1(iii) of Rule 3 of Conduct action under Central Civil Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under the CCS (Pension) Rules and further that 50% of the misappropriated amount be recovered from his gratuity, if not already recovered. Further the balance amount of his gratuity may be released, if otherwise not required. 3. The said order dated 26.4.2013 (Annexure-'32') was questioned by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No. 459/2013 which came to be dismissed on 31.7.2014. 4. Sri. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner taking us through the material on record, submits that the joint enquiry could have been held against the petitioner and Mr. Simon. Though Mr. Simon was held guilty in a separate disciplinary proceeding, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
