Vikram Singh Rawat vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Punishment order dated 12.01.2003 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. By the said punishment order, disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner by a chargesheet dated 02.08.1995 was concluded. The said order has been passed by Chairperson, EC, National Institute for the Visually Handicapped, which appears to be under the administrative control of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. A counter affidavit has been filed to the writ petition, but it has not been stated therein that the present writ petition at the threshold is not maintainable in this Court, as Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that the Petitioner was designated as Organizing Secretary of the Pre-IFLA Conference held in July 1992 with which National Institute for Visually Handicapped was associated. It was stated in the chargesheet that the Petitioner failed to furnish full accounts of the said conference. He failed to produce the passbook of the bank where the funds were kept. He did not obtain sanction of the competent authority while incurring expenditure and accounted for the expenses incurred after the conference on account of the conference. Petitioner gave a reply to the chargesheet and thereby, while denying the charges, held out that he did not receive any money and accordingly, was not obliged to give any accounts or to follow any rules of National Institute for the Visually Handicapped in relation thereto. In the reply, he also held out that in the chargesheet many documents had been referred but copies thereof have not been supplied. In the said reply or otherwise Petitioner, however, did not demand supply of any further document. In view of the said reply, an inquiry officer was appointed, before whom witnesses deposed, including the Petitioner. Petitioner held out that the money in question was received by Smt. Shashi Oberoi, who was appointed as Treasurer for the conference. He stated that the money was given by Mr. Hiroshi Kawamura and the same was spent as was directed by him. He also said that he asked Smt. Shashi Oberoi to give accounts to Mr. Hiroshi Kawamura. He, however, did not deny that he was designated by his employer as the Organizing Secretary of the said conference. The inquiry officer, after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding, gave benefit of doubt to the Petitioner in relation to incurring of expenditure in excess of authority for boarding and lodging, printing and office expenses and held that the other charges stand proved. A copy of the inquiry report was then given to the Petitioner along with a second show cause notice. Petitioner gave a reply thereto. In reply thereto, he contended that the inquiry could not be held for the funds in question were not government funds. After considering such reply, the said order of punishment was passed and thereby a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale for a period of three years was awarded. It was mentioned that during the period of three years, Petitioner shall earn no increment and that he shall be restored to the normal level at the conclusion of the period.

In the writ petition, it is being contended that Petitioner was not responsible for furnishing accounts for the money in question. It was contended that the money in question was received from a private person. It is further being contended that the responsibility for furnishing accounts, if any, rested with Smt. Shashi Oberoi. The fact that the Petitioner was designated as Organizing Secretary of the said conference is not in dispute. Petitioner could only be designated as Organizing Secretary of the said conference for he was so designated by his employer, who was directly associated with the said conference. For the conference money was paid by Mr. Hiroshi Kawamura. The money was kept in the bank account and was spent there from. Petitioner was an authorized signatory of the bank account. Despite getting opportunities even up to the stage of giving reply to the second show cause notice, Petitioner did not give particulars of expenditures made by withdrawing money from the said bank account. That being the situation, according to us, Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the documents upon which the charge was framed, were not supplied. The fact remains that the records of the case do not show that the Petitioner demanded either inspection or supply of copies of any document at any stage of the proceedings and further no attempt has been made by the Petitioner to show what prejudiced he suffered therefor.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the memorandum of charges was not signed, accordingly, it should be deemed that there was no chargesheet. The fact remains that the memorandum of charges was an annexure to the letter by which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated. It was not necessary to sign annexures to the chargesheet. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that burden of proof was purported to be rested on the Petitioner. When the charge was that for the conference a particular sum of money was received and the Petitioner failed to account for the same properly, since negative cannot be proved, burden of proof rested on the Petitioner to prove that the amounts, thus, spent were accounted for, when there is no dispute that the money was received.

For the reasons as above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.