Dismissed
Sh. Rajbir Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/1382/2019
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged the CioO
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~33.
Through: Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. N. K Singh, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C.) No.1382/2019
“ Article-I
Sh. Rajbir Singh, UDC/Gr.III, while posted as Sub Inspector in the Country Liquour (L-9) Bonded Ware-house of M/s.Som Distilleries,51 Rama Road, New Delhi inbonded the consignment, having validity as per I.Ps upto 31.05.2004, 7.6.2004 and 15.6.2004 on 1.6.2004, 8.6.04 and 16.6.2004 without permission from the Competent Authority as required under the Provision of Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, UDC/ Gr. III, while working in above capacity misreported the stock position of the Bonded WareHouse vide his report for the period 16.5.04 to 31.5.04, 1.6.04 to 7.6.04 and 1.6.04 to 15.6.04 as 4400 cases, 2400 cases and 3162cases under Clause 21 of terms and conditions of Country Liquor supply for the year 2004-05 whereas the actual report for the relevant period was 15200 cases, 10674 cases and 10400 cases respectively, thereby causing loss of excise revenue which would have occurred on account of penalty on the licensee.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, UDC/ Gr. III, has therefore, not only violated the instructions/ rules of Punjab Excise Act 1914- but also failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Govt. Servant which is violative of the Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of CCS )(Conduct)Rules, 1964”
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C.) No.1382/2019
aforesaid charge/ misconduct. After duly complying with the procedure, the Disciplinary Authority passed a reasoned order dated 10.10.2011 – subjecting the petitioner to the reduction of 2 increments in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with the further direction that the Government Servant will not earn increments of time during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.
“The CO has tried to defend himself against the charge of misreporting on the plea that he had inbonded some cases with permission but all these were included in the details of cases of country liquor not supplied. He has given a bifurcation of the cases received late with permission and that not received but
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C.) No.1382/2019
has failed to substantiate his claim with any supporting documents.
On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is supported by the Note dated 7.7.2004 (S-12)of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the then DEO (IMFL)(PW-1)addressed to DC (E) after checking the documents of L-9 licence of M/s Som Distillery (P)Ltd. after the inspection dated 20.6.2004, wherein he has clearly mentioned that there were consignments which were delayed and no specific permission was obtained for inbonding. Secondly, the number of cases of short supply as defined in Clause 21 of Terms and Conditions of L-9 Licence was not adhered to in all those periods (referred to in the Charge Sheet also). The number of cases reported was less than the actual number of cases.
His contention has been countered by the PO also in his written brief stating that no documentary evidence of written intimation dt. 1.6.04 has been produced by the CO. This argument on the part of the PO is also supported by the additional document (DD-2,3 & 4)provided by GM (Excise)i.e. Copy of UO no. 45 dt. 19.5.06 clearly stating that the CO had not made any correspondence regarding revalidation of permits which are part of enquiry, as per record available in the branch. This fact is supported by the photocopy of letter dt. 4.7.05 of Sh. R.N. Tyagi, Excise Inspector posted at the Som Distilleries (P)Ltd. , 51 Rama Road, New Delhi furnished by GM (Excise)vide UO no. F.1/Ex/CL/2005/581 dt. 29.9.05 as additional document (marked as DD-2&3) wherein it has been also confirmed that no letter for seeking permission to take delivery of the goods which reached after the expiry of the date of validity of IPs was available at the bonded ware house.”
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(C.) No.1382/2019
findings are not open to scrutiny in these proceedings as it is not a case of perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence, or a case with no evidence.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2019
N.Khanna
Page 5 of 5
W.P.(C.) No.1382/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence regarding misconduct charges adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Whether the Appellate Authority failed to pass a reasoned order by merely agreeing with the Disciplinary Authority without addressing submissions.
Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding misreporting of stock position were perversely arrived at or evidenced by insufficient material.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
VIPIN SANGHI
A.K. CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court