The Delhi High Court, in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India, reaffirmed that financial misconduct and forgery by government employees warrant strict disciplinary action. The court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF Pay Clerk, who was found guilty of misappropriation of funds and tampering with official records, ruling that such offenses constitute moral turpitude and justify removal from service. The division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur also rejected the petitioner's plea for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, emphasizing that employees dismissed for dishonesty and fraud are not entitled to pensionary benefits. The judgment highlights the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and upholds the principle that courts should not interfere unless there is a gross violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity.
Sunil Kumar Singh, initially recruited as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the CRPF in 1994, served as a Pay Clerk in the 103rd Battalion of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), CRPF. Despite facing multiple disciplinary actions during his service, he was allowed to continue. However, in 2009, he was charged with financial misconduct, forgery, and tampering with official records, which led to his dismissal from service on December 22, 2009.
Following his dismissal, Singh appealed before the departmental appellate and revisional authorities, but both upheld the decision. In 2011, he applied for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, citing financial hardship. His request was denied, as his dismissal was on the grounds of moral turpitude. Aggrieved by this, he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court in 2012, challenging his dismissal and seeking compassionate allowance, arguing that his actions were unintentional errors caused by mental stress. The Union of India opposed the petition, stating that the charges of financial fraud and falsification of records were proven in a fair inquiry. The Delhi High Court ultimately upheld his dismissal and denied his request for compassionate allowance, ruling that his misconduct was serious and disqualified him from post-service benefits.
- Was the dismissal of Sunil Kumar Singh from service proportionate to his misconduct under the CRPF Act, 1949?
- Did the departmental inquiry comply with principles of natural justice?
- Is an employee dismissed for moral turpitude entitled to compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972?
- Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters: The High Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is limited in cases of disciplinary action. Courts cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are patently perverse or unsupported by evidence."Unless it is shown that the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority are patently perverse or based on no evidence, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted." The court cited Union of India v. Subrata Nath (2022), holding that findings in a departmental inquiry can only be overturned if they are grossly incompatible with evidence on record
- Evidence Against Sunil Kumar Singh and Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings: The court examined the six charges against the petitioner and found them well-supported by evidence. Charge 1: Illegally withdrew ?15,460 in the name of another officer, failing to record the transaction in the government muster rolls. Charges 2-5: Tampered muster rolls to reflect recoveries that were never made. Charge 6: Withdrew ?6,898 during suspension and later sought the same amount again by concealing the prior withdrawal.The disciplinary authority examined nine witnesses and 20 documents, confirming financial fraud. The court dismissed Singh's argument that these were unintentional errors due to stress, ruling that tampering with financial records is a grave offense."The petitioner transgressed by raising a pay bill for reimbursement of HRA in the name of another Force personnel and taking the amount himself, leading to misappropriation of Government funds. He further committed serious irregularities qua the Government Muster Roll and tried to siphon off money from the public exchequer."
- Proportionality of Punishment: The court held that financial misconduct in uniformed services warrants strict action. It cited Union of India v. Constable Sunil Kumar (2023), where dismissal was upheld for similar misconduct."We find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority, which were duly confirmed by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the Revisional Authority in respect of all the charges levelled against the petitioner." It ruled that dismissal was proportionate, emphasizing the importance of integrity in armed forces.
- Denial of Compassionate Allowance Under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 41 allows compassionate allowance in exceptional cases. However, the court clarified that misconduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty disqualifies an employee. Citing Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014), the court rejected the plea:"The petitioner has been dismissed from service on an act of moral turpitude/dishonesty and an act designed for personal gains from the employer, being the Government. Given the nature of the offences, we do not find this to be a fit case for the grant of Compassionate Allowance." The court also dismissed reliance on State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013), stating that it did not apply to cases involving moral turpitude.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding:
- Dismissal from service as a proportionate punishment for financial misconduct and tampering with official records.
- Denial of compassionate allowance, as acts involving moral turpitude disqualify an employee under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The court emphasized judicial restraint in disciplinary matters, affirming that misappropriation of government funds warrants strict action.
This post is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to defame, discredit, or tarnish the reputation of any individual, entity, or organization. The opinions expressed are based on publicly available judicial decisions and are aimed at fostering a better understanding of legal principles. For specific legal advice, readers are encouraged to consult a professional.
