Negligence in Bill Processing Leads to Penalty: High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against CRPF Official.


03 April 2025 Disciplinary Proceedings >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In S. Sunil Kumar v/s Union Of India & Others., the Delhi High Court recently upheld a disciplinary order imposing a penalty of reduction in pay scale on a petitioner, a former Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The petitioner had challenged the order, which stemmed from a departmental inquiry finding him guilty of processing a payment bill of Rs. 9,85,536/- to a contractor without ensuring the completion of the associated hospital work and without obtaining a mandatory 'Work Completion Certificate'.

The petitioner, who had a career spanning from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, was served with a charge memorandum in 2016 concerning his actions during his posting at Group Center (GC) Pallipuram between 2007 and 2014. One of the key charges (Article II) alleged that despite knowing the hospital work awarded to M/s Haute Cream Trading Company was incomplete in March 2012, the petitioner intentionally processed the final payment bill, leading to its release and causing undue benefit to the contractor.


 

 

During the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer initially found the petitioner not guilty of any charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed, holding Article of Charge-I partially proved and Article of Charge-II fully proved. Subsequently, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), consulted on the quantum of punishment, concurred that Article of Charge-II was substantiated while disagreeing with the Disciplinary Authority on the partial proof of Charge-I. The UPSC recommended a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for one year without increments during that period, which was ultimately imposed on the petitioner in February 2021.

The petitioner argued before the High Court that he was merely an implementing authority, following the directions of his superiors, and that the bill had passed through various levels without objection. He contended he lacked the authority to issue completion certificates or release payments independently. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner's counsel argued that the Disciplinary Authority's findings were unsupported by evidence and that the disagreement between the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, and the UPSC indicated a flawed process based on mere assumptions.

Conversely, the respondents argued that a special audit had revealed irregularities at GC Pallipuram, leading to the inquiry. They asserted that as the in-charge of the Building Branch, it was the petitioner's primary responsibility to obtain the 'Work Completion Certificate' before processing the final payment. While acknowledging potential directives from higher authorities regarding budget utilization at the end of the financial year, the respondents maintained that the petitioner should have still ensured compliance with rules and regulations and made efforts for work completion.

The High Court, while acknowledging its limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters under Article 226 of the Constitution, focused on whether the petitioner had indeed misconducted himself. The court noted that the petitioner did not dispute processing the bill without the completion certificate. It rejected the argument that the bill's vetting by others absolved the petitioner of responsibility, stating that as the processing authority, he should have ensured adherence to rules and brought any discrepancies to the notice of his superiors. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have insisted on the 'Work Completion Certificate' as mandated by Rule 132 of the General Finance Rules, 2005, before proceeding with the payment.

The High Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention of a delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, as he failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to his defense. The court opined that the delay, if any, was adequately explained by the respondents due to the need for a special audit and subsequent inquiry.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient reasons to set aside the disciplinary order and interfere with the penalty imposed based on the UPSC's advice. The petition was accordingly dismissed.The Delhi High Court recently upheld a disciplinary order imposing a penalty of reduction in pay scale on a petitioner, a former Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The petitioner had challenged the order, which stemmed from a departmental inquiry finding him guilty of processing a payment bill of Rs. 9,85,536/- to a contractor without ensuring the completion of the associated hospital work and without obtaining a mandatory 'Work Completion Certificate'.

The petitioner, who had a career spanning from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, was served with a charge memorandum in 2016 concerning his actions during his posting at Group Center (GC) Pallipuram between 2007 and 2014. One of the key charges (Article II) alleged that despite knowing the hospital work awarded to M/s Haute Cream Trading Company was incomplete in March 2012, the petitioner intentionally processed the final payment bill, leading to its release and causing undue benefit to the contractor.

During the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer initially found the petitioner not guilty of any charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed, holding Article of Charge-I partially proved and Article of Charge-II fully proved. Subsequently, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), consulted on the quantum of punishment, concurred that Article of Charge-II was substantiated while disagreeing with the Disciplinary Authority on the partial proof of Charge-I. The UPSC recommended a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for one year without increments during that period, which was ultimately imposed on the petitioner in February 2021.

The petitioner argued before the High Court that he was merely an implementing authority, following the directions of his superiors, and that the bill had passed through various levels without objection. He contended he lacked the authority to issue completion certificates or release payments independently. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner's counsel argued that the Disciplinary Authority's findings were unsupported by evidence and that the disagreement between the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, and the UPSC indicated a flawed process based on mere assumptions.

Conversely, the respondents argued that a special audit had revealed irregularities at GC Pallipuram, leading to the inquiry. They asserted that as the in-charge of the Building Branch, it was the petitioner's primary responsibility to obtain the 'Work Completion Certificate' before processing the final payment. While acknowledging potential directives from higher authorities regarding budget utilization at the end of the financial year, the respondents maintained that the petitioner should have still ensured compliance with rules and regulations and made efforts for work completion.

The High Court, while acknowledging its limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters under Article 226 of the Constitution, focused on whether the petitioner had indeed misconducted himself. The court noted that the petitioner did not dispute processing the bill without the completion certificate. It rejected the argument that the bill's vetting by others absolved the petitioner of responsibility, stating that as the processing authority, he should have ensured adherence to rules and brought any discrepancies to the notice of his superiors. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have insisted on the 'Work Completion Certificate' as mandated by Rule 132 of the General Finance Rules, 2005, before proceeding with the payment.

The High Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention of a delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, as he failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to his defense. The court opined that the delay, if any, was adequately explained by the respondents due to the need for a special audit and subsequent inquiry.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient reasons to set aside the disciplinary order and interfere with the penalty imposed based on the UPSC's advice. The petition was accordingly dismissed.