The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by S.C. Vohra, a former Senior Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, upholding his dismissal from service for grave misconduct involving unauthorised audits, misuse of official seal, and impersonation of a superior officer. The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and that the punishment imposed was neither arbitrary nor shockingly disproportionate, warranting no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner was initially appointed in 1969 and served in various capacities before being posted with the Audit Management Group–IV. Allegations arose that between November 1996 and May 1999, he had unauthorisedly conducted Central Excise audits of industrial units in the Okhla Industrial Area, issued audit memos and completion certificates without authority, and impersonated an Assistant Audit Officer by misusing the official seal. Following a complaint in May 1999, a fact-finding inquiry and forensic examination by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) were undertaken. A charge memorandum dated March 26, 2004 was thereafter issued under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Upon completion of the inquiry, the charges were held proved, and the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated May 20, 2005, which was affirmed in statutory appeal on July 20, 2005. Though the Central Administrative Tribunal earlier remitted the matter on the limited issue of proportionality of punishment, the Appellate Authority, upon reconsideration, reiterated the penalty. A subsequent Original Application challenging the proceedings was dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to the present writ petition.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain examined the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and held that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate authorities. While the Court observed that the Tribunal was not entirely correct in applying the principle of res judicata as an absolute bar, it held that this did not assist the petitioner since the challenge failed on merits. The Court found that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet was satisfactorily explained by the nature of investigation and did not cause prejudice. It further held that proof of motive or personal gain was not necessary where the misconduct of impersonation and misuse of official position stood established.
On the question of punishment, the Court held that acts involving loss of integrity strike at the root of public service, and length of service cannot dilute the gravity of such misconduct. The penalty of dismissal was held to be commensurate with the charges proved and not such as to shock the conscience of the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, with no order as to costs.
Appearance:
For Petitioner- Advocate A.K. Srivastava and Sanjay Verma.
For Respondent: Advocate Surender Singh Hooda and Shaurya Pratap Singh.
