Pyare Lal Kuril vs Union Of India & Ors.

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member-(Administrative)

Shri Pawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as MCM (Painter) and joined in No.1 BRD Air Force Station, Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar on 16.05.1983. He has applied for personal loan of 2,25,000/- from Punjab National Bank at Chakeri Kanpur and filed an Irrevocable letter of Authority on 23.01.2012 with the purpose of authorizing his employer to remit a sum of amount every month from the salary of the applicant and the aforesaid Irrevocable Letter of authority dated 23.01.2012 was signed and verified by Shri Ashok Kumar, Accounts Officer, Local Account Officer (AF) Chakeri, Kanpur. The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank wrote a letter to Account Officer on 01.03.2012 to the effect that personal loan of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been sanctioned in favour of the applicant on the basis of regular salary drawing through the Bank and sought permission for the adjustment of above personal loan through salary disbursement to the applicant though his branch. Shri Ashok Kumar, A.O., has written a letter dated 12.03.2012 to the Chief Manager, PNB, Kanpur denying his signature on the aforesaid Irrevocable Letter of Authority dated 23.01.2012. Shri Ashok Kumar, A.O., written a letter to the Officer Commanding, I BRD, Chakeri, Kanpur requesting him to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant. One Shri Awadhesh Kumar, Safaiwala, who is working in the office of Sri Ashok Kumar, A.O. has given his statement on 02.07.2012 that he does not know the applicant and has never met. Shri Ashok Kumar, A.O. has written to the Enquiry Officer on 21.08.2012 stating therein that Shri Pyare Lal Kureel (Applicant) has got a loan of Rs. 2,25,000/- by making fraud signature of the undersigned as his employer while he is not the employee of his office. A memorandum dated 22.11.2012 has been served upon the Applicant which was issued from the office of Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi proposing to hold an enquiry against the applicant with the allegation that he has fraudulently got sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the Punjab National Bank by submitting a fake Irrevocable Letter of Authority. The Wing Commander R. Tangella was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri Narendra Singh was appointed as Presenting Officer in violation of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant was forced to make his signature on a blank paper by Shri Ashok Kumar, A.O., and on the aforesaid blank paper a forged confessional statement was made by Shri Ashok Kumar against the applicant. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the report of enquiry without examination or cross examination of the witnesses whose statement has been relied against the applicant and even without providing defense assistant to the applicant in violation of the statutory provisions as contained in Rule 14(14) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant submitted his written reply on 26.12.2013 denying the charges against him and requested for fair enquiry after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the applicant and asked for the verification of the veracity of the signature of Shri Ashok Kumar. Without considering the aforesaid objection submitted by the applicant before the enquiry officer as well as commanding officer and without giving the opportunity of hearing to the applicant and without examination or cross examination of the witnesses relied against the applicant, the Air Marshal, Air Officer in Charge Personnel has passed the order dated 24.02.2014 by which the penalty of ‘Compulsory Retirement from Service’ has been imposed against the applicant. On 21.04.2015 the applicant filed the OA before this Tribunal which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of filing appeal with the Hon’ble President. The applicant filed a memo of Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has passed order dated 16.09.2015 without considering the grounds of appeal. The applicant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.67271 of 2015 (Pyare Lal Kuril Vs Union of India and 5 Others) which was dismissed citing alternate remedy available to applicant. The actual date of retirement of the applicant is 31.12.2016 and denying him more than two years of active service as he was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 24.02.2014. The penalty of compulsory retirement of the applicant is without providing proper opportunity of hearing in violation of law of natural justice and fair play which is not sustainable under the law. The above act of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, perverse and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of the statutory provisions contained in CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. On the basis of above the applicant wanted to allow this original application.

In their counter reply the respondents have submitted that only after receiving a letter dated 01.03.2012 from the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Kanpur to the A.O., A.O. came to know about the forged signature made by the applicant. He wrote a letter dated 12.03.2012 to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, denying the issuance of such irrevocable letter of Authority and his signature. The applicant was given sufficient opportunity to put his defence and cross examine the witnesses. The applicant has willfully accepted the charges against him of submitting irrevocable letter of Authority to the bank with fake signature of Shri Ashok Kumar. The enquiry officer asked from the delinquent officer to avail defence assistant in his defence. The applicant did not wish to nominate any defence assistant in his own defence as applicant has accepted that he has submitted forged letter of irrevocable letter of Authority so there is no scope of any further verification by expert. The applicant was served with a memorandum of chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) 1965 for fraudulently getting personal loan sanctioned from Punjab National Bank, Kanpur by submitting irrevocable letter of Authority dated 23.01.2012 containing forged signature of Shri Ashok Kumar LAO which was reported to 1 BRD by Shri Ashok Kumar leading to disciplinary action against the applicant. He has submitted his statement on 20.05.2013 willfully and without any force and the applicant has submitted his closing statement on 23.05.2013. The applicant categorically stated that he did not wish to nominate any defence assistant. The entire disciplinary case was based on documentary evidence and the own statement dated 20.05.2013, the applicant has willfully accepted the commitment of offence hence there is no question of examination and cross examination of witnesses. The representation dated 26.12.2012 was considered and found untenable in the eyes of law. There is no denial of opportunity/natural justice and order against the applicant has been passed in conformity of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. On the basis of above submissions respondents have mentioned that the above original application is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.

In his rejoinder affidavit the applicant has reiterated almost the same facts and submitted that he has repaid the entire loan amount to the Punjab National Bank.

Heard the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the documents available on record.

In this context the questionnaire and answer given to applicant is reproduced below:-

Here it is relevant to reproduced Rule 14 (5) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

Accordingly, disciplinary authority has proceeded against the applicant and passed the order based on relevant rules and regulations. There is no procedural violation as applicant has been provided due opportunity to defend himself and relevant rules/regulations were followed.

On the basis of above discussions, it is clear that applicant has not been able to establish his claim and the original application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the original application is dismissed. No Costs. All the related MAs stands disposed of.