Pension Cut for CRPF Commandant using an official vehicle while on leave
HERE is the grave charge against a former CRPF Commandant.
Shri xxx, Commandant, 2nd Bn CRPF while posted and functioning as Commandant 14 Bn, CRPF Amritsar during 1993 committed a serious misconduct, in that on return from GC II Ajmer after completion of Govt.duty and while availing casual leave from 17.12.93 to 20.12.93 enroute at his residence in Chandigarh ordered on 16.12.93 move of Service Car and Gypsy Regn. No.DL-4C 7464 with escort from Amritsar to Chandigarh and used the vehicle for his private purpose while he was on casual leave at Chandigarh. Thus the said Shri xxxx, failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
And that triggered a long-winded legal battle.
In 2002, a penalty was imposed on the officer, which was reduction in pay by three stages for three years. The Delhi High Court set aside this penalty in 2008 on procedural grounds, but the Court allowed the department to proceed ahead in accordance with the law.
The Department started proceedings again. In the meantime, the officer got retired and so they imposed a penalty of reducing his pension by 5%.
In this case UPSC had observed, that the period in question was when terrorism was not fully eradicated in Punjab and thus the petitioner having required a despatch service car and Gypsy to be sent to Chandigarh to transport him back to Amritsar was justified.
The matter again reached the Delhi High Court which last week held: the misconduct, if any committed by the petitioner, is not a grave misconduct and thus we quash the penalty levied of 5% cut in pension for a period of six months.
Gallantry Award sought to be withdrawn: The officer's woes did not end there. In view of the above misconduct, a gallantry award given to him by the President of India in 2006 was sought to be cancelled. The Delhi High Court observed, "the very initiation of the action to withdraw the gallantry medal is premised on noting facts which have no concern with the issue of the gallantry medal. Further, the basis to initiate the action to withdraw the gallantry medal is founded on the penalty levied upon the petitioner of 5% cut in pension for six months, which penalty we have quashed and thus for said additional reason the said action to initiate cancellation/withdrawal of the gallantry medal is required to be quashed. We do so."
The gallant officer's valiant fight for the sin of misusing a Government vehicle hopefully ended after 22 years - that is if the Government does not appeal to the Supreme Court.
You can see any number of Revenue and other officers strongly believing that the official vehicle is meant for their private use. You go to a market, temple, mall, theatre - you will find a few government vehicles - but then that is enough to torture an officer for more than two decades.
The punishment for many legal proceedings is not the end result, but the journey itself.