ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Shri Satbir Singh, the applicant herein, seeks setting aside of the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Senior Administrative Officer by which he has been compulsorily retired and also the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer by which his appeal carried against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.
2. The applicant was holding the post of Peon (Group ‘D’). He was served with memos with different dates on 25.02.2003, 12.03.2003 and 26.03.2003, respectively by Senior Administrative Officer, the 4th respondent herein. After receiving reply from the applicant and following required procedure, the applicant was compulsorily retired on 06.01.2006, which order as mentioned above, has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. The applicant was proceeded departmentally on the following charges:
not intimating the transaction related to purchase of Santro Car by his wife.
Bringing the said Santry Car unauthorisedly in the higher security zone of Sena Bhavan.
Not intimating his arrest by the Police.
Misleading the authorities by giving false information regarding the amount paid by his wife for purchased of car.
Not obtaining the previous sanction for accepting a gift of Rs. 1,00,000/- by his wife from her father &
264 bottels of liquor with lebel ‘Only for CSD’ were confiscated from the said Santra car parted by him in Sena Bhavan parking area.
3. The Inquiry Officer submitted report on 19.01.2005 holding five out of six charges as proved. A copy of the Inquiry Report was supplied to the applicant on 11.03.2005 for making representation. The Disciplinary Authority while going through the inquiry report and the representation made by the applicant passed impugned order compulsorily retiring him by a detailed order against which the appeal was preferred but with no favourable result.
4. All that has been urged in support of the present Application is that the money for purchasing the santro car by the wife of the applicant was given by her father, who is a very rich man and further on the charge that 264 bottles of liquor with lebel ‘Only for CSD’ were confiscated when it was parked by him in Sena Bhavan Parking Area, it was not possible for him to take car in Sena Bhavan where no vehicle could enter without checking.
5. We do not find any merit in either of the contentions of the learned Counsel as noted above.
6. The charge as regards the purchase of car was for not intimating the transaction related to purchase thereof and not for purchasing the same by unaccounted money. The finding with regard to the recovery of 264 bottles of liquor has been returned on the basis of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that since no vehicle could enter without checking, the same could not have been seen parked in Sena Bhavan. Each and every aspect of the case has been thoroughly discussed by the concerned authorities. There is absolutely no scope for interfering with the findings of fact leading to proof of the charges framed against the applicant. Therefore, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.