Delhi High Court upholds forced retirement of IAF employee who ‘faked’ union receipts to collect money

The bench noted that the punishment imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate in the facts of the case.

The Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner, not being an office bearer of the Union and without any authority, collected subscription amounts from civilian employees of the station in the name of the Union. Further, he is alleged to have forged receipt books by unauthorised use of the Union’s registration number.

It continued, “The Rule 3 (1) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, mandate that every government servant shall maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and shall refrain from conduct unbecoming of a government servant.”

Unauthorised money collection, forged documents

The petitioner, a civilian carpenter at the Air Force Station, Faridabad, was served a memorandum of charge in April 2016. He was accused of unauthorisedly collecting union subscriptions from approximately 30 civilian employees during a period when he was not an elected office bearer of the Civilian Karamchari Union, and forging and issuing fake receipt books bearing the Union’s registration number to facilitate these unauthorised collections.

Following an ex parte inquiry, where the petitioner failed to appear despite receiving several notices between June 2016 and September 2016, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on May 1, 2017. This decision was later upheld by the CAT.

Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an appeal under Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and also filed an addendum to the appeal raising additional grounds to assail the above orders.

In October, 2017, the apellate authority, after considering the relevant submissions, inquiry report, rrder of the disciplinary authority and evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the ptitioner by way of an elaborate speaking order, with observations that the alleged “misconduct” stood clearly established by way of the evidence on record and there existed no ground to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.

‘Conduct of petitioner strike at core of integrity’

• The charges proved against the petitioner are not confined to mere participation in union activities; rather, they pertain to unauthorised collection of money and the use of forged documents.
• Such conduct, even if ostensibly linked to union affairs, cannot be insulated from scrutiny under the applicable service jurisprudence and squarely constitutes misconduct.
• In agreement with the view adopted by the learned tribunal that such “misconduct” is squarely governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
• As the contention regarding the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, we find that the tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the inquiry was conducted by adhering to the prescribed procedure and that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.
• The record does not disclose any such procedural infirmity of a nature that would vitiate the entire proceedings.
• As regards the punishment imposed, once such charges, which strike at the core of integrity, have been partly admitted by the petitioner and there is evidence supporting the same, the quantum of punishment imposed would lie primarily within the domain of the competent authority.
• The punishment imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate in the facts of the case, particularly in view of the nature of the allegations of financial misdemeanour and use of forged receipts.

Findings

• It would be apposite to mention that the scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary matters is well settled.
• The court exercising the power of Judicial Review does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence.
• Interference is warranted where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or where the inquiry is vitiated by a violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice.
• It is no more res-integra that judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is concerned not with the correctness of the decision, but with the decision-making process, and the imposition of penalty is solely the prerogative of the concerned disciplinary authority, and interference is only permissible if the punishment imposed is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court.

• Based on documentary evidence, the petitioner’s own partial admission regarding the collection of money and the testimonies of as many as eight witnesses, the charges of financial irregularity and use of forged receipts have been proved.
• The findings of guilt have been consistently recorded by the inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority.