Financial Misconduct In Government Service Warrants Dismissal; No Compassionate Allowance For Acts Of Moral Turpitude: Delhi HC

Background

Sunil Kumar Singh was a Pay Clerk in the 103rd Battalion of the Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force. While initially recruited as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in 1994, he worked at several locations before being posted in the 103rd Battalion in 2004. However, he had faced disciplinary action multiple times in his service.

In 2006, he was suspended and subjected to an inquiry for alleged misconduct, but the charges were dropped. However, in 2009, he was charged again for financial irregularities and misuse of official authority. Six charges were leveled against him, including misappropriation of funds, tampering with government records, falsifying muster rolls, etc. This led to his dismissal from service on December 22, 2009.

His appeals and revision petitions were dismissed. He also applied for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This request was denied due to his dismissal on the grounds of moral turpitude. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement and compassionate allowance.

Arguments

Sunil Kumar Singh argued that his dismissal was disproportionate. He claimed that the financial irregularities were unintentional and caused by mental stress, including personal issues such as his wife's medical treatment. He argued that they were minor errors and did not amount to a misconduct that warranted dismissal. He also argued that the inquiry process was biased, as it ignored his long service record. Citing State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013) 12 SCC 210, he argued that he is entitled to compassionate allowance despite dismissal.

The Union of India argued that Sunil Kumar Singh had committed severe financial misconduct, that included misappropriation of funds and tampering with official records. They submitted that the inquiry was conducted fairly, and followed the principles of natural justice. They argued that Sunil Kumar Singh was provided ample opportunity to defend himself but he failed to refute the allegations convincingly. Lastly, they argued that he must not be given any compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as his actions amounted to moral turpitude.

Court's Reasoning

The court first reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It noted that courts cannot act as appellate authorities to reappreciate evidence, unless the findings are patently perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Further, it found that the disciplinary inquiry had adhered to due process. The petitioner was provided a charge sheet, documentary evidence, and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. It found that nine witnesses and 20 documents also supported the charges (Paragraph 26).

Regarding the charges, the court noted the following. On Charge 1, he was found to have improperly withdrawn Rs. 15,460 by raising a bill in the name of another officer and failing to record the transaction in government muster rolls. Charges 2 to 5 pertained to tampering with muster rolls to reflect recoveries that were never made. Lastly, on Charge 6, he withdrew Rs. 6,898 during a suspension period and later sought the same amount again by concealing the prior withdrawal.

Noting these, the court rejected his claim that these were unintentional errors due to stress. It held that financial irregularities and tampering with government records are grave offences. Thus, it ruled that in such cases, the penalty of dismissal from service is proportional and just.

On compassionate allowance, the court examined Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It noted that the rule permits compassionate allowance in exceptional cases. However, it concluded that Sunil Kumar's actions of moral turpitude and dishonesty disqualified him. Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition. It affirmed the dismissal order of Sunil Kumar Singh and denied his plea for compassionate allowance.

Decided on: January 14, 2025

Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Nazim Uddin Ahmed and Mr. A.K. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati and Mr. Sourabh Bhushan (Legal Officer, CRPF)

Click Here To Read/Download The Order