Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8224-8225 OF 2011

H.L. Gulati ..Appellant

versus

Union of India and others ..Respondents

J U D G  M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. 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.

2. The investigative process, indicated the involvement of large number  

of officers, including Lt.  Col.  Pakki Rama Shankar Rao.  This led to the  

registration of a first  information report  bearing No.RC AC 11998 A0002  

dated  20.05.1998  at  police  station  CBI/SPE/ACU(I)  District  New  Delhi.  

Eventually, a charge sheet  bearing No.2 dated 6.9.1999 came to be filed,

Page 2

2

wherein the appellant was arrayed as accused no.1.

3. 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.  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.Accounts  Officer-in-Charge  `M'  Section  during  the  period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDA (HQRS.),  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.I.  to the tune of Rs.42.24 lakhs approximately.  Thus the said  H.L.Gulati,  SAO  failed  to  maintain  devotion  to  duty,  conducted  himself  in  a  manner  unbecoming  of  a  Govt.  servant and failed to take all possible steps to ensure the  integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt. servants for the  time  being  under  his  control  and  authority,  thereby  violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(i)  of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in  the aforesaid office the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to detect  that  (I)  fraudulent  claims  had  been  floated  against  fake  sanctions  purported  to  have  been issued by  Ministry  of  Defence/DGOS,  (ii)  the  contingent  bills  had  not  been  preferred by the officers of DGOS authorized to do so and  (iii)  appropriate  procurement  procedure  relevant  to  the  value of stores procured had not been followed.  Thus the  said H.L.Gulati,  SAO, failed to maintain devotion to duty,  conducted  himself  in  a  manner  unbecoming  of  a  Govt.  servant and failed in the performance of his official duties  in  the  exercise  of  powers  conferred  on  him,  thereby  violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(ii)  of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article III

Page 3

3

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in  the aforesaid office the said H.L.Gulati, SAO authorized the  payments  of  the  36  fraudulent  claims  to  the  tune  of  Rs.42.24  lakhs  approximately,  as  officer-in-charge  `M'  Section although the expenditure as per the fake sanctions  was debitable to the Revenue Head “Ordnance stores and  did not fall within the purview of `M' Section as per Chapter  VIII  of  OM  Part  XII  and  even  without  getting  the  local  purchase bills noted in Accounts Section as required vide  para 437 OM Part II Vol. I.  Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO  failed to maintain devotion to duty, conducted himself in a  manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and failed to take  all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty  of all Govt. servants for the time being under his control  and authority, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 33(1) (ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article IV

That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as  Sr.Accounts  Officer-in-Charge  `M'  Section  during  the  period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDS (Hqrs), New  Delhi, passed 36 fraudulent claims amounting to Rs.42.24  lakhs approximately.  Though the concerned bills related to  Store  Section,  these  were  processed  and  passed  for  payment  in  the  `M'  Section  and  without  following  the  prescribed procedures.  The above act of Shri  H.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.  The  above  act  indicates  complicity  with  the  alleged  suppliers  and  also  exhibits  failure  on  the  part  of  Shri  Gulati  to  maintain  absolute  integrity.

Thus the said H.L.Gulati, SAO failed to maintain absolute  integrity and conducted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt.  servant thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and  (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

4. The  appellant  preferred  a  reply  to  the  aforesaid  charge  memo on  

4.9.1998.   Finding the reply filed by the appellant  as unsatisfactory,  the  

punishing authority decided to hold a regular departmental enquiry, which

Page 4

4

came to be ordered against the appellant on 9.10.1998.

5. 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.   The aforesaid report  came to  be served upon the  

appellant  through  a  communication  dated  5.2.2004.   The  appellant  

preferred a representation contesting the findings recorded by the Enquiry  

Officer  on  7.3.2004.   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').   Rule  9  afore-mentioned is  

being extracted hereunder:

“9.Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension

(1)  The  President  reserves  to  himself  the  right  of  withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or  in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether  permanently  or  for  a  specified  period,  and  of  ordering  recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of  any pecuniary loss caused to the Government,  if,  in any  departmental  or  judicial  proceedings,  the  pensioner  is  found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the  period  of  service,  including  service  rendered  upon  re- employment after retirement :

Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall  be consulted before any final orders are passed :

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or  withdrawn  the  amount  of  such  pensions  shall  not  be  reduced below the amount  of  rupees three hundred and  seventy-five per mensem.

2(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub- rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in  service  whether  before  his  retirement  or  during  his  re-

Page 5

5

employment,  shall,  after  the  final  retirement  of  the  Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under  this  rule  and  shall  be  continued  and  concluded  by  the  authority  by  which  they  were  commenced  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the  Government  servant  had  continued  in  service:

Provided  that  where  the  departmental  proceedings  are  instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that  authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the  President.

(B) The  departmental  proceedings,  if  not  instituted  while  the  Government  servant  was  in  service,  whether  before his retirement, or during his re-employment, -

(i)shall  not  be  instituted  save  with  the  sanction  of  the  President,

(ii)shall  not  be in respect  of  any event  which took place  more than four years before such institution, and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place  as  the  President  may direct  and in  accordance with  the  procedure  applicable  to  departmental  proceedings  in  which an order of dismissal from service could be made in  relation to the Government servant during his service.

(3)    Deleted

(4) In the case of Government servant who has retired on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation  or  otherwise  and  against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are  instituted  or  where  departmental  proceedings  are  continued  under  sub-rule  (2),  a  provisional  pension  as  provided in shall be sanctioned.

(5)  Where  the  President  decides  not  to  withhold  or  withdraw pension but  orders  recovery  of  pecuniary  loss  from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at  a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the  date of retirement of a Government servant.

(6) For the purpose of this rule, -

(a) departmental  proceedings shall  be deemed to be

Page 6

6

instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is  issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if  the  Government  servant  has  been  placed  under  suspension  from an earlier date, on such date ; and

(b)judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -

(i)in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which  the  complaint  or  report  of  a  police  officer,  of  which  the  Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and

(ii)in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is  presented in the court.”

The aforesaid Rule came to be invoked on account  of  the fact  that  the  

appellant had attained the age of retirement, and had superannuated from  

service with  effect  from 30.06.2002.   While  invoking Rule 9 of  the 1972  

Rules,  the  punishing  authority  ordered  the  withholding  of  50%  of  the  

appellant's pension permanently, and also, the withholding of 50% of the  

appellant's gratuity.

6.  Dissatisfied  with  the  punishment  order  dated  30.11.2005,  the  

appellant preferred a review petition on 4.7.2006.  Submissions advanced  

by the appellant in the review petition were considered by the punishing  

authority, whereupon, by an order dated 1.8.2007 the review petition came  

to be rejected.

7. Whilst  the  criminal  proceedings  were  pending  consideration,  the  

aforesaid  departmental  proceedings  attained  finality.   Insofar  as  the  

criminal  proceedings  are  concerned,  it  is  sufficient  to  notice,  that  the  

Special  Judge,  Delhi,  while  adjudicating upon the controversy vide  his  

order  dated  8.7.2005,   found  the  appellant  not  guilty  of  any  criminal

Page 7

7

accountability.   The  trial  Court,  in  the  criminal  case,  arrived  at  the  

conclusion,   that  the complicity   of  the  appellant  in  the  fraud,  was not  

substantiated,  nor  was  there  any  intentional  culpability  proved.  

Accordingly, the appellant came to be discharged from the criminal case.

8. 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.  1675 of 2008.  The Administrative Tribunal  vide its order  

dated 13.4.2009 arrived at the conclusion, that the enquiry report submitted  

by the Enquiry Officer on 18.7.2002, did not record any finding of grave  

misconduct .  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 not sustainable.

9. 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.  The High Court accepted the writ petition, and set aside  

the  order  passed  by  the  Administrative  Tribunal  on  31.8.2010.   The  

appellant before this Court, also preferred review petition No.428 of 2010  

before the High Court.  The said review petition was, however, rejected by  

an order dated 26.11.2010.

Page 8

8

10. 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.  Leave in the matters came to be granted  

on 23.09.2011.  It is therefore, that the instant appeals have  matured for  

consideration, at our hands.

11. Before venturing to determine the culpability of the appellant insofar  

as the articles of charge, that came to be levelled against him, it would be  

imperative for us to examine the determination of the Enquiry Officer, in his  

report  dated  18.7.2002,  on  each  of  the  articles  of  charge.   We  shall  

accordingly,  summarily  deal  with  the  findings  recorded  by  the  Enquiry  

Officer hereunder:

i) Insofar as Article I of the charge memo dated 7.7.1998 is concerned,  

the Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion, that  the responsibility of the  

Senior  Accounts  Officer  in  respect  of  the  verification  of  the  specimen  

signature was not only to be his own verification, but he was also to ensure  

that where verification was done, it would be so indicated, in the voucher.  

As per the determination of the Enquiry Officer, the aforesaid obligation  

would imply that the Senior Accounts Officer, was not only to record an  

endorsement  on  the  voucher,  he  would  also  have  to  ensure  that  the  

auditors  and  the  Assistant  Accounts  Officer  also  record  such  

endorsements on vouchers, when they dealt with the issue of specimen  

verification.  A categoric finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer to the  

effect,  that the  bills which authorized the payment of the 36 fraudulent

Page 9

9

claims, did not show any such endorsements, and therefore  concluded,  

that the appellant had failed to put his own endorsement,  and had also  

failed to ensure endorsements by the auditors/Assistant Accounts Officer,  

about verification of the specimen signature on the bills, leaving a doubt  

whether the auditors/AAOs had verified the specimen signature.  Having so  

recorded, the Enquiry Officer accepted that  Article I  of the charge with  

reference to the appellant ( who was working in the 'M' section during the  

period 16.10.1992 to 15.10.1994 in the office of CDA(HQ), New Delhi) to the  

extent, that had failed to discharge his duties effectively as provided for in  

Appendix  1  to  OM Pt.1.   The  Enquiry  Officer  accordingly  inferred,  that  

authorization of the payment of  the 36 fraudulent claims, to the tune of  

Rs.42.24 lakhs, stood marginally proved.

ii) Insofar  as  Article  II  of  the  memo  of  charge  dated  7.7.1998  is  

concerned, the Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion, that the appellant  

had failed to detect,  that the fraudulent claims had been floated against  

fake sanctions purported to have been issued by the Ministry of Defence,  

was correct.  As such the Enquiry Officer accepted, that the charge stood  

proved. On Article II, the Enquiry Officer recorded the following conclusion:

“1) fraudulent  claims have been floated against  fake  sanctions  purported  to  have  been  issued  by  Min.  of  Defence partially proved.

2) the  contingent  bills  have  not  been  preferred  by  officers of DGOS authorized to do so is not proved.

3) The appropriate procurement procedure relevant to the  value of stores procured has not been followed is proved.”

Page 10

10

iii) Insofar as Article III of the charge memo dated 7.7.1998 is concerned,  

it  was  alleged  against  the  appellant,  that  the  bills  which  were  routed  

through  the  accounts  section  for  noting,  bore  the  endorsement  of  the  

accounts section, to the effect that the bills had been noted in the accounts  

section.  However,  on  the  basis  of  exhibits  P/1/1  to  P/1/36,  the  Enquiry  

Officer arrived at the conclusion, that no such endorsements were there on  

these  bills.   According  to  the  finding  recorded  by  the  Enquiry  Officer,  

although  these  bills  were  required  to  be  routed  through  the  accounts  

section for noting, they had not been so routed.  Based on paragraph 154  

of Chapter 13 of Defence Account Code, which lists items which are under  

locally  controlled  heads,  according  to  which,  payment  of  stores  and  

miscellaneous claims would come under the purview of locally controlled  

heads, i.e., heads susceptible to control against against budget provision  

by the various administrative and executive authorities subordinate to the  

Government of India, and para 437 OM Pt. II Vol. I (Miscellaneous Section)  

which provided that bills in respect of  charges which were debitable to  

locally controlled heads, would have to be sent to the accounts section  

before  payment,  for  obtaining  a  certificate  regarding  the  availability  of  

funds, and further para 514 of Chapter VII Stores Contract Section of OM  

Pt.II Vol.I which provides that bills relating to locally controlled heads or  

centrally controlled heads for which specific allotment existed, the bills had  

to  be  forwarded  to  the  accounts  section,  for  noting  and  furnishing  a  

certificate of  availability of funds.   Hence, whether or not the bills were

Page 11

11

processed  in  'M'  section  or  Stores  Contract  Section,  according  to  the  

Enquiry Officer, the bills were required to be sent to the accounts section,  

for obtaining a certificate regarding the availability of funds as according to  

Para 47(a) of Defence Audit Code. One of the main objectives of audit of  

expenditure  was  to  ensure,  that  there  is  a  provision  of  funds  for  the  

expenditure duly authorized by the competent authority.  On  perusal of the  

bills, the Enquiry Officer found, that  there were no endorsements thereon,  

of  the  accounts  section.   Therefore,  the  Enquiry  Officer  arrived  at  the  

conclusion, that the second part of Article III of the charge memo,  that the  

bills were passed without even getting the bills noted in accounts section,  

stood  substantiated  against  the  appellant.   Having  so  concluded,  the  

Enquiry Officer held that Article III of the memo of charge dated 7.7.1998 to  

be partially proved.

iv) Insofar as Article IV of the charge memo dated 7.7.1998 is concerned,  

the Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion, that the same was not proved  

against the appellant.

12. The  punishing  authority  accepted  the  findings  recorded  by  the  

Enquiry Officer.  Thereupon,  a copy of the enquiry report was served upon  

the  appellant.   The  appellant  submitted  a  representation  in  response  

thereto, on 7.3.2004.  The punishment order dated 30.11.2005 was passed  

after the Punishing Authority considered the reply filed by the appellant.  

The said punishment order was reiterated, upon the disposal of the review  

petition filed by the appellant,  vide order dated 1.8.2007.

Page 12

12

13. The  first  contention  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  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.  In sum and substance, the contention of the learned counsel for  

the  appellant  was,  that  it  was  the  Enquiry  Officer  who  ought  to  have  

recorded  a  finding  of  “grave  misconduct”  or  “grave  negligence”,  

whereupon the punishing authority could have invoked Rule 9 of the 1972  

Rules, to inflict an appropriate punishment upon the appellant.

14. Having perused Rule 9 of the 1972 Rules, it is not possible for us to  

accept  the  first  contention  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant.  The responsibility vested on an enquiry officer is limited to the  

determination  of  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  a  delinquent  employee,  with  

reference to charges levelled against him.  It is on the establishment of the  

charges (if any), that the punishing authority will record a finding, whether  

the  conclusions  lead  to  the  further  inference,  that  the  delinquent  has  

committed acts of “grave misconduct” or “grave negligence”.  It is on such  

determination by the punishing authority that Rule 9 of the 1972 Rules can  

be invoked, in case the delinquent employee has, in the meantime, retired  

on attaining the age of superannuation. It is not a matter of dispute that  

when the punishment was inflicted upon the appellant by an order dated  

30.11.2005,  the  appellant  had  already  retired  from  service  having  

superannuated  on  30.06.2002.   We  therefore  find  no  merit  in  the  first  

contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.

Page 13

13

15. The only other contention  advanced at the hands of the appellant  

was,  that  the  Enquiry  Officer  had  recorded  findings  on  the  first  three  

articles,  that  the  charges  against  the  appellant  were  partly/marginally  

proved.   Having  invited  our  attention  to  the  conclusion  drawn  by  the  

Enquiry Officer, learned counsel for the appellant, also drew, our attention  

to  the  impugned  punishment  order  dated  30.11.2005/1.8.2007,  and  

contended,  that  the  findings recorded by the Enquiry  Officer  were  fully  

endorsed by the punishing authority.  Based on the aforesaid, it was the  

vehement  submission of  the  learned counsel  for  the appellant,  that  the  

Enquiry Officer cannot be stated to have recorded any conclusion, which  

would  lead   to  the  inference  that  the  appellant  was  guilty  of  “grave  

misconduct”.

16. The details of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer have been  

noticed by us hereinabove.  We find merit in the instant contention of the  

learned counsel for the appellant. What was sought to be proved against  

the  appellant  was  negligence  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  as  Senior  

Accounts  Officer,   which  resulted  in  the  unauthorised  payment  of  36  

fraudulent  claims,  and  thereby,  the  unauthorised  dispersal  of  

approximately  Rs.42.24  lakhs.   Additionally,  it  was  sought  to  be  

emphasised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the charge of ill-

motive  was  levelled  against  the  appellant  in  Article  IV  of  the  memo of  

charges dated 7.7.1998.  But insofar as Article IV of the memo of charges is  

concerned,   the  appellant  was  found  innocent  thereof  by  the  Enquiry

Page 14

14

Officer.   The submissions sought to be put forward was, that it had come  

to be established, that there was no ill-motive at the hands of the appellant,  

insofar as his involvement in the release of payments of the 36 fraudulent  

claims is  concerned.   Additionally,  it  was the contention of  the  learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant,  that  even  in  the  course  of  the  criminal  

prosecution, initiated against the appellant, his complicity in the fraud was  

not proved, nor was it found that there was any intentional culpability of  

the appellant, insofar as the release of the fraudulent claims are concerned.  

In the above view of the matter, it was the assertion of the learned counsel  

for the appellant, that there was no express ill-intention at the hands of the  

appellant.   In other words, the issue substantiated against the appellant  

was of mere negligence.   

17. We affirm the aforesaid  submission advanced at  the hands of  the  

appellant,  inasmuch  as,  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  accept,  that  the  

appellant was blameworthy/guilty of any “grave misconduct” because the  

enquiry report dated 18.7.2002 only found that the appellant was negligent  

in the discharge of his duties.  Insofar as Artivle IV of the memo of charges  

dated 7.7.1998 is concerned, he was accused of complicity with the alleged  

suppliers,  and  also,  responsible  for  having  failed  to  maintain  absolute  

integrity.   But  then,  Article  IV  of  the  charge  memo was  held  to  be  not  

proved in the Enquiry Report dated 18.7.2002.  Equally important is the fact,  

that the appellant was discharged from the criminal prosecution initiated  

against  him  with  reference  to  the  same  sequence  of  facts.    We  are

Page 15

15

accordingly  satisfied  to  conclude,  that  the  appellant  may  have  been  

negligent in the discharge of his duties, but it is not possible to conclude,  

that the appellant was guilty of “grave misconduct”.

18. Having  so  concluded,  it  emerges  that  the  findings  against  the  

appellant could certainly not have been of “grave misconduct”. Be that as  

it may, the punishing authority,  while passing the impugned punishment  

order dated 30.11.2005 recorded the following conclusion:

“9. AND WHEREAS, the President in the light of  the  above  observation  and  findings  and  after  taking  into  account all relevant aspects as contained in record of the  case, is satisfied that the charges which were established  against  Shri  H.L.  Gulati,  SAO(Retd.)  constitutes  a  grave  misconduct. Therefore, the President considers that ends  of justice would be met if 50% of the pension admissible to  Shri  H.L.  Gulati,  SAO (Retd.)  is  withheld   on permanent  basis and 50% of gratuity is withheld.”    

(emphasis is ours)   

19. Based on the conclusion, which had been recorded by the punishing  

authority in the order dated 30.11.2005(extracted above), namely, that the  

delinquency  levelled  against  the  appellant  in  the  charge  memo  dated  

7.7.1998  which  stood  established  constituted  “grave  misconduct”.   A  

review petition filed by the appellant to assail the order of punishment was  

rejected on 1.8.2007.

20. We are satisfied, that it was open to the punishing authority to have  

passed the punishment order, in terms of the mandate contained in Rule 9  

of  the 1972 Rules.  We are further satisfied,  that the punishing authority  

could have passed such an order  after arriving at the conclusion that the

Page 16

16

appellant/delinquent was either guilty of “grave negligence” or of “grave  

misconduct”.    The  punishing  authority  recorded,  while  passing  the  

punishment order, that the appellant was found to have committed acts of  

“grave  misconduct”.  Having  perused  the  charges  proved  against  the  

appellant,  we  have  already  concluded  above,  that  the  delinquency  

established against appellant was of negligence, and not of misconduct.  

Therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned order that the appellant  

had committed acts of “grave misconduct” cannot be accepted. The above  

conclusion, in the impugned order being unacceptable, is hereby set aside.  

In the absence of the conclusion of “grave negligence”, the punishment  

order is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside.

21. Since the delinquency relates to the years 1992 to 1994, it would not  

be  in  the  fitness  of  the  matter,  to  require  the  punishing  authority  to  

reconsider a lesser punishment, in view of the conclusion recorded by us  

hereinabove.  We would therefore exercise our jurisdiction under Article  

142 of the Constitution of India, to inflict an appropriate punishment upon  

the appellant.  Keeping in  mind the delinquency proved and established  

against  the  appellant  in  the  enquiry  report  dated  18.7.2002,  which  was  

accepted by the punishing authority, we are satisfied that ends of justice  

would  be  met  if  the  punishment  of  withholding  50%  of  his  gratuity  is  

maintained/sustained. Insofar as the permanent withholding of 50% of the  

appellant's pension is concerned, we are of the view that it would be just  

and appropriate to sustain the same till the end of the current month, and

Page 17

17

to order the release of 100% of the appellant's pension with effect from  

01.03.2015. Ordered accordingly.

The instant appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…....................................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …......................................J. FEBRUARY 26, 2015. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]    

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.120               COURT NO.4               SECTION XIV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  8224-8225/2011 H.L.GULATI                                         Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 26/02/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing  

          today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

For Appellant(s) Dr. M.P. Raju, Adv. Mr. E.J. Varghese, Adv.

                   for Mr. M. T. George,AOR(NP)                       For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.  

                   for Mrs. Anil Katiyar,AOR(NP)                                 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the Reportable  Judgment, which is placed on the file.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Renu Diwan)     Court Master Court Master