it2025_00343 — Punishment for lapses / offences of minor nature may not lead to severe punishments especially when an employee did not intimate the acquisition of Assets by him and also the assets of an employee does not exceed 10% of his total income

Punishment for lapses / offences of minor nature may not lead to severe punishments especially when an employee did not intimate the acquisition of Assets by him and also the assets of an employee does not exceed 10% of his total income — This chunk is about a disciplinary case against a Deputy Director (QA) in DGS&D regarding excess income and asset acquisition. The case refers to the judgment in *Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.... — Facts: This is a disciplinary case. The Applicant, Deputy Director (QA) of DGS&D was issued with a charge-sheet for possessing excess income to the extent of 4.62% of the income calculated. He was issued with a charge-sheet. There were differences in the suggestions of quantum of punishment to be inflicted on him. In the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1977 SC 2317 ], it was held that "if the income excess was less than 10% of the total income, it would not be right to hold that the assets found in possession were disproportionate to his known source of income". The department considered the punishment of "censure" to "reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for three years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension". CVC insisted on reduction to a lower scale as stated above which prevailed on the quantum of punishment to be inflicted. Against that punishment, this OA is filed. It is not necessary to go into the contentions of both sides as the parties express their own view as is done in any other cases of punishment. It is enough if the observation of the Tribunal is noted. The Tribunal after hearing both sides analyzed the case and the CVC Circular, dated 26-2-2001. Important points in that letter are "There is a tendency to view with harshness the failure to intimate transactions. Such a tendency could arise out of a desire to suppress transactions connected out of illicit earnings or out of mistake / ignorance, etc. In the latter reasons, possibility implies that the acquisition has been financed out of an acceptable source of income rendering it a case of non-compliance with specific provision of the conduct rules, etc., without reflecting on the integrity of the public servant. Visiting harsh punishments on mere technical lapses would not meet the ends of justice, since the public servant's integrity is not in question and failure to intimate cannot be equated with possession of disproportionate assets. If not related to assets, disproportionate known sources of income, failure to intimate should be treated as a technical lapse. Such lapses attract only a censure / administrative warning". It is said that the above policy may be noted for compliance. The question for consideration is, whether the impugned penalty, Order, dated 29-9-2010 is justifiable or suffers from illegality warranting judicial intervention. Incidental issue which also arises for consideration whether CVC afore-noted circular could have been ignored while taking a final decision℃ In the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others [ (1999) 2 SCC 10 ], it was held that "the Court in domestic enquiry can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority". Conjectures and surmises in the enquiry is not to be accepted. In the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [ 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 ], it was held that irrelevant facts cannot be taken into account and the authorities cannot refuse the relevant facts. Sanction for prosecution of a public servant when refused during his service cannot be prosecuted after retirement as held in the case of Chittaranjan v. State of Orissa [ (2011) 7 SCC 167 ].