ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Bachi Ram, a Senior Auditor, the applicant herein, has been dismissed from service pursuant to a regular departmental enquiry vide order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by him against the order aforesaid found no favour with the appellate authority as the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2006. These are the orders which have been challenged in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The only ground pressed into service during the course of arguments is that the penalty of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct said to have been proved against the applicant. With a view to examine the only contention of the learned Counsel representing the applicant, as noted above, it would be appropriate to find out the four articles of charge that came to be framed against the applicant. The same read as follows:
Article-I – Shri Bachi Ram, Sr. Auditor had raised personal loan of Rs. 65,000 from State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar, Delhi in October 2000 and Rs. 50,000 each from Bank of India, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, The Union Bank of India, Model Town, Delhi and Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka, New Delhi in July 2001, August 2001 and August 2001 respectively. For these loans, he furnished certificates dated 20.10.2000, 23.7.2001, ‘Nil’ and 30.8.2001 respectively to the banks purportedly from this office, interalia, certifying that he was a permanent employee of the office and that he had submitted undertakings authorising this office to credit his salary every month to his loan accounts with above mentioned banks in case of any default on his part till repayment of entire loan amounts. All the four certificates were required to be furnished by the office of the DGACR, New Delhi. Since the transactions in question were not reported by Shri Bachi Ram to this office, there was no occasion for this office to issue such certificates. This office received information regarding loan transaction made by Shri Bachi Ram from State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar, Delhi through its advocate on 17.2.2003 and later through summons dated 20.5.2003 received from Civil Judge, Tis Hazar Court, Delhi. The information regarding loan transactions made by Shri Bachi Ram with Bank of India, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, the Union Bank of India, Model Town, Delhi and Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka, New Delhi were received from them on 12.7.2004, 3.6.2002 and 14.2.2003 respectively. Thus, Shri Bachi Ram furnished forged certificates to the State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, Bank of India, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, Union of India, Model Town, Delhi and the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Munirka, New Delhi for the purpose of raising personal loans from them. By furnishing forged certificates, Shri Bachi Ram failed to maintain absolute integrity and violated Rule 3 (1) (i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II – Shri Bachi Ram, Sr. Auditor for raising personal loans from banks, was required to execute a bond in favour of this office, interalia, authorising the letter to deduct loan amount from his salary in case of any default on his part till repayment of entire loan amount. Accordingly, Shri Bachi Ram raised personal loans from banks and submitted false declaration to them he had executed bonds in favour of this office authorisig it to deduct loan amount from his monthly salary in case of any default on his part till repayment of entire loan amount and remit the same to the banks. In actual fact, Shri Bachi Ram neither informed this office about such bonds nor submitted any bond to this office. Shri Bachi Ram, thus, misled both the banks and this office for his personal gain by submitting false declaration to the banks and on the other hand not informing this office about such declaration and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III – Legal proceedings for recovery of loans were initiated by State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, Capital Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, Delhi, Ashirwadam Co-operative Society, Delhi, and Jai Lakshi Co-operative Bank Ltd., Fateh Puri, Delhi against Shri Bachi Ram, Sr. Auditor in Courts of Law. Thus, Shri Bachi Ram failed to manage his private affairs in a manner to avoid habitual indebtedness. Shri Bachi Ram also did not inform this office about several legal proceedings initiated against him. By his habitual indebtedness and failure to intimate this office regarding legal proceedings initiated against him for recovery of loan, Shri Bachi Ram has violated Rule 17 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV – Shri Bachi Ram, Sr. Auditor borrowed money from various banks and Co-operative Societies and subsequently failed to repay their dues. In each case, the value of financial transaction made by Shri Bachi Ram was more than Rs. 10,000/-. He entered into several financial transactions without intimating the competent authority as required under Rule 18(3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. By failing to furnish the requisite intimation regarding financial transactions to the competent authority, Shri Bachi Ram has violated Rle 18(3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The applicant candidly admitted all articles of charge against him vide memo dated 3.6.2005 and only prayed to be pardoned vide his reply dated 1.7.2005. Evidence led during the course of enquiry would reveal that the applicant had obtained loans from 14 banks/societies and did not inform his office about these financial transactions, and submitted forged certificates to obtain the loans. The disciplinary authority considered the unconditional apology tendered by the applicant but did not accept the same, as in its view the misconduct indulged in by the applicant would not lessen the gravity of charges, especially when it is related to repeated breach of integrity by submitting forged certificates to the banks. The appellate authority too considered the quantum of punishment commensurate to the gravity of repeated misconduct of the applicant and opined as follows:
The undersigned will now proceed to examine the adequacy of the penalty. It is an undisputed fact that the penalty of dismissal from service is a severe penalty and it is to be imposed in the rarest of the rare cases. It is, therefore, to be adjudged whether Shri Bachi Ram’s case falls in this category. From a careful perusal of the records connected with the case, the undersigned finds that the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service as, in her view, it was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct of repeated breach of integrity, which she held to have been conclusively proved when Shri Bachi Ram accepted all articles of charge framed against him unconditionally. Rule 4 (1) (i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which regulates the conduct of government employees enjoins upon every employee to maintain absolute integrity at all times. The term ‘integrity’ connotes ‘uprightness, honesty or purity’. The articles of charge against Shri Bachi Ram related to lack of integrity and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, by submitting forged certificates and false declarations to banks and cooperative societies for availing loans. Shri Bachi Ram had admitted the charges unconditionally. In this background the undersigned holds that Shri Bachi Ram did not maintain absolute integrity at all times. Cases involving failure to maintain integrity are required to be dealt with severely as letting off the delinquent official or award of inadequate quantum of punishment which is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed, would have deleterious effect on the discipline in the organisation. The undersigned is, therefore, of the considered view that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
2. We have given our considered thoughts to the contention of the learned Counsel for reducing the penalty imposed upon the applicant, but are unable to accept his contention. The applicant was Senior Auditor holding a responsible post. He obtained loans from 14 banks/societies on the basis of forged documents and never made repayment of the loans resulting into several litigations in which the employer of the applicant was also involved when it received summons from various courts. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the appellate authority that admission of guilt would not minimise the gravity of misconduct indulged in by the applicant. That apart, it is too well settled that courts normally would not interfere with the quantum of punishment, as it is thought that the authorities concerned are in a better position to determine punishment commensurate to the indiscipline alleged or proved against a delinquent.
3. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.