The investigative process, indicated the involvement of large number of officers, including Lt.
Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain devotion to duty, companyducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
Having allowed an opportunity to the Presenting Officer, as also, to the appellant delinquent to lead evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.7.2002.
In the above view of the matter, the Administrative Tribunal, while interpreting Rule 9 of the 1972 Rules, held that the punishment inflicted upon the appellant on 30.11.2005 as also the review order passed against the appellant on 1.8.2007 were number sustainable.
Based on the aforesaid, it was the vehement submission of the learned companynsel for the appellant, that the Enquiry Officer cannot be stated to have recorded any companyclusion, which would lead to the inference that the appellant was guilty of grave misconduct.
The High Court accepted the writ petition, and set aside the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 31.8.2010.
The said review petition was, however, rejected by an order dated 26.11.2010.
Thereupon, a companyy of the enquiry report was served upon the appellant.
The orders passed by the Delhi High Court on 31.08.2010 and 26.11.2010, were assailed by the appellant by preferring Special Leave Petition C Nos.3365 3366 of 2011.
The details of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer have been numbericed by us hereinabove.
The articles of charge levelled against the appellant are being extracted hereunder Article I That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as Sr.
The appellant before this Court, also preferred review petition No.428 of 2010 before the High Court.
Eventually, a charge sheet bearing No.2 dated 6.9.1999 came to be filed, wherein the appellant was arrayed as accused number1.
Accordingly, the appellant came to be discharged from the criminal case.
The punishing authority accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
Simultaneously, with the initiation of criminal proceedings, the authorities issued a charge memo dated 7.7.1998 to the appellant, wherein he was accused of four articles of charge.
Accounts Officer in Charge M Section during the period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDA HQRS. ,
The appellant preferred a representation companytesting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 7.3.2004.
The above act indicates companyplicity with the alleged suppliers and also exhibits failure on the part of Shri Gulati to maintain absolute integrity.
1675 of 2008.
Finding the reply submitted by the appellant unacceptable, the punishing authority by an order dated 30.11.2005, punished the appellant under Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Rules .
Aggrieved by the punishment order dated 30.11.2005, and the rejection of the review petition vide order dated 1.8.2007, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.
Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain absolute integrity and companyducted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.
RC AC 11998 A0002 dated 20.05.1998 at police station CBI SPE ACU I District New Delhi.
Finding the reply filed by the appellant as unsatisfactory, the punishing authority decided to hold a regular departmental enquiry, which came to be ordered against the appellant on 9.10.1998.
The appellant preferred a reply to the aforesaid charge memo on 4.9.1998.
servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 1 i and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
Leave in the matters came to be granted on 23.09.2011.
New Delhi, failed to discharge his duties effectively as provided for in Appendix 1 to Defence Accounts Department Office Manual Part I, which led to authorization of payment against 36 fraudulent claims as listed in Encl.
The first companytention advanced by the learned companynsel for the appellant was premised on the interpretation of Rule 9 of the 1972 Rules in the same fashion as the same had been interpreted by the Administrative Tribunal.
Submissions advanced by the appellant in the review petition were companysidered by the punishing authority, whereupon, by an order dated 1.8.2007 the review petition came to be rejected.
Dissatisfied with the punishment order dated 30.11.2005, the appellant preferred a review petition on 4.7.2006.
The punishment order dated 30.11.2005 was passed after the Punishing Authority companysidered the reply filed by the appellant.
The aforesaid report came to be served upon the appellant through a companymunication dated 5.2.2004.
This led to the registration of a first information report bearing No.
The appellant submitted a representation in response thereto, on 7.3.2004.
The Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 13.4.2009 arrived at the companyclusion, that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 18.7.2002, did number record any finding of grave misconduct .
Pakki Rama Shankar Rao.
The said punishment order was reiterated, upon the disposal of the review petition filed by the appellant, vide order dated 1.8.2007.
The order passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 13.4.2009, came to be assailed by the Union of India, before the High Court of Delhi hereinafter referred to as the High Court through Writ Petition C No.13664 of 2009.
servant and failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt.
The above act of Shri L.Gulati resulted in fraudulent payment to the tune of Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately to the alleged suppliers and caused pecuniary loss to the Govt.
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. The appellant was holding charge of the post of Senior Accounts Officer, in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, during the period 1992 to 1994, when it was discovered that 36 fraudulent claims came to be authorized by him, resulting in the unauthorised release of an approximate amount of Rs.42.24 lakhs.
I. to the tune of Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately.
