Union of India v. Vinod Sharma

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was guilty and responsible for destruction of the ledger pages/file. He has drawn our attention to the fact that the file was under his charge and as per the entry dated 14th May, 1993, made in the file movement register, the file was under his custody and thereafter the file was lost/misplaced from his charge.

3. By Memorandum dated 8th October, 1999, a charge-sheet was served on the respondent. As per the said charge sheet there were two allegations against the respondent, Vinod Sharma:-

(i) He while working as L.D.C., deliberately and willfully misplaced/got lost the file in 1993, which was marked in his name w.e.f. 14.5.1993;

(ii) This was done with a view to avoid penalty and falsification of property documents.

4. This is clear from the Memorandum of Charge, which reads:- “The said Sh. Vinod Sharma U.D.C. (Cashier) while working in Lease-I Section as L.D.C. during the year 1993 was the dealing assistant of property file of 95/1 Market Road and also known as “Laxmi Niwas”. As per file movement register, the relevant file stands marked in his name w.e.f. 14/5/93. During this period, the said Sh. Vinod Sharma, U.D.C. with a view to avoid payment of penalty and/or in falsification of property documents and failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited total lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule-3(1)(i) & (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

5. The enquiry officer in his report dated 21st July, 2008, held that the Presenting Officer has failed to prove the charge and the attempt to prove the allegations was feeble. This was because there was no substantial evidence on which he could establish the case. He further recorded that role of one Mr. S.K. Arora, Overseer, was dubious but he had not been charge-sheeted. The relevant findings are as under:-

6. It is clear from the aforesaid finding that the charge against the respondent was not proved but the enquiry officer went and gave a finding in respect of something which was extraneous and not a subject matter of the charge. The memorandum of charge, as noticed above, was specific and pin-pointed.

7. By the Office Memorandum dated 4th August, 2008, the Disciplinary Officer has directed as under: “The undersigned is therefore, directed to advice Shri Vinod Sharma, UDC, to submit his representation/written submission on the above observations/finding of the Inquiry Officer within 15 days from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum failing which it will be presumed that he has not representation to make and orders will be passed against him ex-parte.” (emphasis supplied)

8. Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner and inquiry report, passed the Order dated 10th August, 2009 which reads as under: “And whereas, the undersigned being the Disciplinary Authority, has carefully considered the Inquiry Report as well as the explanation given by Shri Vinod Sharma, UDC and has come to the conclusion that there is severe lapse on his part in not ensuring the safe custody of the file in spite of having knowledge of interest of unauthorized persons in the property file to whom he had carried the file without any written request. The lapses on the part of Shri Vinod Sharma, UDC, had resulted in the loss of the official records/file on 95/1 Market Road also known as Laxmi Niwas. And therefore, the undersigned being Disciplinary Authority, having considered all aspects of the case has come to the conclusion that Shri Vinod Sharma, UDC failed to maintain absolute integrity and absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. Now therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 consider that ends of justice would be met by imposing the penalty of reduction of his pay by two stages lower in the time-scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200/- for two years with cumulative effect upon. Shri. Vinod Sharma, UDC.”

9. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction in pay by two stages lower in time scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200 for two years with cumulative effect, which was modified by the appellate authority to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the respondent’s pension.