Judgment:
SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.)
The present OA has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to declare all the proceedings leading up to and including the proceedings NO.1-138/2006-Vig.III, dated 10.5.2007 of The 2nd respondent, confirming the punishment of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect, imposed vide proceedings No.8/70/2004-Vig.II, dated 30.9.2005 of the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, void, bad in law, disproportionate to the charges, harsh and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in the OA, are that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), PandT Building Works Gr 'A' service in the PandT Department in 1983 (UPSC 1981 Batch) through the Engineering Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. He was further promoted as Executive Engineer in 1990 on regular basis and later as Superintending Engineer in the year 2000 on ad hoc basis. The applicant, while working as Superintending Engineer (Civil) at A.P.Telecom Circle, Hyderabad, was absorbed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Government of India Enterprise with effect from the year 2000.
3. While working as Superintending Engineer (Civil) at Kolkatta, the applicant was instructed by the Principal Chief Engineer (Civil), Kolkata to offer an explanation on a complaint dated 3.10.1998 made by M/s Chary Constructions against Shri H.N.Thakkar, Assistant Engineer (Civil), Deonar, Mumbai about giving free hand to him, vide letter dated 27.8.2002 (Annexure A-I). In the said complaint it was alleged by the Deputy General Manager (Vig), Mumbai that the applicant failed to notice in the accepted tenders by AE (Civil), the absence of the market rate analysis and proportion of the Chemicals in the items, the items not framed economically and that he had no control over the activities of the said AE (Civil) which resulted a loss of Rs.62,248.00 and these losses could have been avoided had the applicant controlled him then and there while scrutinising the bills received from AE (Civil), Deonar for payment while he was working at Mumbai. The applicant submitted his explanations dated 18.10.2002 and 7.8.2003 to the Principal Chief Engineer, Kolkata and the Chief Engineer, Hyderabad respectively for forwarding the same to DGM (Vig), Mumbai, explaining as to how the tenders floated and accepted by the said Shri H.N.Thakkar, were fair and justified, by inviting the attention of the Department that no losses were suffered by the Department on account of those works. It was also urged in the explanations that the estimates were technically sanctioned by the AE (Civil) who was competent to do so and the tenders were accepted under his own-delegated authority under the delegated financial powers conferred by the Department.
4. The applicant states that in the decentralised system of the delegation of powers, it is not practically possible to make a check then and there while scrutinising the bills, when the tenders were already accepted by the Assistant Engineer (Civil) within his delegated financial powers which had resulted in a contract. The applicant further states that the said Shri H.N.Thakkar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) is no more. Ultimately, the alleged lapses on the part of the said Assistant Engineer (Civil) led to the issuance of the charge memo No.8/70/2004-Vig II dated 18.5.2004 of the 1st respondent to the applicant levelling various allegations.
5. The applicant submitted a detailed explanation on 12.7.2004 denying the charges. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings No.8/70/2004-Vig.II dated 30.9.2005 imposed a punishment of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect, for the lapse of supervisory negligence and non adherence to the prescribed procedure with regard to the deviation statement.
6. The applicant preferred a review petition on 29.12.2005 to the Hon'ble President under Rule 29-A of CCS (CCandA) Rules, 1965. Since the said review petition was remained pending, the applicant filed W.P.No.3600 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of andhra Pradesh, which was disposed directing to dispose of the said Review Petition, by an order dated 26.2.2007. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent rejected the said Review petition vide proceedings No.1-138/2006-Vig.III dated 10.56.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed W.P.No.18122 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of andhra Pradesh. The Hon'lble High Court found that it has no jurisdiction since the orders were passed by the 2nd respondent in connection with the services of the applicant with Union of India and the applicant was permitted to approach this Tribunal within three weeks, in order to save his application from limitation. Hence the present OA.
7. The main ground urged by the applicant is that it was not clear from the allegations as to which of the duties were not performed for which specific work, causing loss to what sum to the Department and the charges levelled against him are vague and not supported by relevant material.
8. The applicant states that the charge memo was not supported by any material on which it sustains i.e., list of documents and list of witnesses, as such, any disciplinary proceeding initiated based on such illegal charge, must be nullified. The applicant submits that the acid test for avoiding the vagueness is that the charged officer should be in a position to understand the charge perfectly and know the material on which it is based.
9. The applicant further states that the case against him was not initiated on its merit because the charges against him were linked with the death of Shri Thakkar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) and on account of the death of Shri Thakkar, no penalty could be imposed on him, hence the charge memo was issued to the applicant. This reflects total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents before issuing the charge sheet.
10. The applicant submits that the provisions made in CPWD Manual Vol.II, on the basis of which the charges of non adherence of the prescribed rules was proved, came into existence in the year 2000 only and hence were not applicable during the period 1997-98. As per the CPWD Manual Vol.II 1995, which was applicable at that time, the applicant had not to prepare the deviation statement and take the approval of the same by the higher authority.
11. The applicant further states that it was alleged in the complaint dated 3.10.1998 that Shri Thakkar, Assistant Engineer (Civil) had been abusing his powers and favouring some contractors with mala fide intention to get pecuniary gains by allotting the work to certain favourable contractors at a very high rates violating the tender proceedings. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry, it was mentioned in the report of the investigation, inter-alia, that Shri Thakkar committed the irregularities in connivance with the applicant. However, the investigation report was directed towards Shri Thakkar. Since Shri Thakkar expired, no penalty could be imposed on him. Subsequently, a charge memorandum was issued to the applicant. The applicant states that penalty on Shri Thakkar could not be imposed not due to the sole reason of his sudden death but due to the fact that no disciplinary proceedings were at all initiated before his death even after 3 to 4 years of the complaint/investigation. It is stated that to cover up their own lapse for not initiating any disciplinary proceeding against Shri Thakkar and further imposing the penalty on him due to his sudden death on 3.7.2001, the respondents decided to take action against the controlling officer (applicant herein)calling for his explanation vide letter dated 27.8.2002 after the death of Shri Thakkar only.
12. It is stated that it was alleged in the complaint that Shri Thakkar was allowed free hand by EE (Civil) and the EE (Civil) failed to notice in the accepted tender by AE(Civil), the absence of market rate analysis, proportion of the chemical in the items, the items not framed economically and could not excise then and there the control on the AE (Civil) while scrutinizing and passing the bill, which resulted a loss of Rs.62,248.00 for the total five number of works mentioned in the complaint. The applicant states that all the five works were within the financial powers of AE (Civil) and being the Engineer-in-Charge of the work, he was primarily responsible for the execution of the works. The applicant further states that in the explanation called, there was no mention about the irregularities committed by Shri Thakkar in connivance with EE(C) as per the findings of the investigation report probably with the notion that the disciplinary action against Shri Thankkar cannot be taken now.
13. The applicant further submits that in the charge memo, the reference of only two works was given and these works were very specific for the special repairs with the use of chemicals. The AE(C), being the competent technical authority, was to decide the use of the chemicals departmentally or by the agency. Probably for the second work, when no tenderer participated with the provision of the chemical by the agency, the AE(C) might have decided to provide the chemical departmentally and accordingly analysed the rates of the items. When the tenderer quoted high rates without understanding the items, the tender was rejected. Such a decision for two specific works cannot be generalised and could not be seen as a element of manipulation by the AE(C). Moreover, such a technical decision had no financial implications. Further if there was any loss attributable to the delinquent employee, then such a loss should be quantified in the precise terms and the manner in which he caused the loss should be indicated. In case of charge showing undue favour or causing loss to the Department, Bills/Vouchers etc., showing details of payment must be included in the list of documents. No such details were given along with the charge memo. Hence, the applicant states that the disciplinary proceedings based on such illegal charges, must be nullified.
14. The applicant submits that for the alleged charge of collusion with the AE(C) and the private parties with improper motive and carrying out the works and releasing the payment exceeding the tender amount by 80% to 90%, a detailed explanation was given to justify the stand that there was no reason for the collusion with the AE(C) and the private parties by the EE(C) with any improper motive. The payments were released by the Division Office after thoroughly checking the bills by the Auditors, Accounts Officers and the EE(C) following the provisions contained in the Manual. The payment of the bills along with deviations were made only after justification of the requirement and approval by the competent administrative authority, passing of all the statements having financial implications like AHR/ALR (Abnormally High/Low Rated) statements and Extra items etc. Further, Revised Estimates were prepared wherever required giving all justified reasons for the deviation including reference of the requisition by the competent administrative authority for the deviation and the administrative authority approved such revised estimates. The applicant states that there were no lapses and negligence on the part of EE(C) while scrutinising and passing the bills. While levelling the alleged charges, it was not specific how it was concluded about the collusion with AE(C) with improper motive. There were no specific names of any private parties and the charges were not only vague, non-specific and general but also failed to explain as to how those were arrived and what material document or otherwise have been relied for such a conclusion.
15. The applicant further states that regarding the violation of the provisions of Rule 421 to 426 of PandT Manual Vol.,II, Rule 6 of General Financial Rules and guidelines of Schedule of rates of CPWD, to which the applicant explained in his explanation that a close perusal of these rules will substantiate that these rules were neither violated for the alleged charges nor the rules were applicable to the EE(C) in most of the cases for which the tenders were called by the AE(C). The Rules 421 to 426 pertain to preparation of the contract documents, inviting tenders, calling negotiations and acceptance of the tenders etc., and these rules were applicable to AE (Civil) as all the works in reference were within the financial powers of AE (Civil).
16. It is submitted by the applicant that after going into the applicant's representation dated 12.7.2004 and examining the same, the Union Public Service Commission observed that the allegation that the element of manipulation committed by AE(Civil) were in connivance with the CO has not been substantiated and many of the submissions made by CO have been accepted by D.A., and the decision taken by Shri Thakkar were in terms of financial powers delegated to him. The plea that the responsibility and accountability of every authority delegated with the financial powers is total and indivisible is relevant and acceptable. The applicant states that based on the above observations only, the 2nd respondent vide Order dated 30.9.2005, stated that the charge of supervisory negligence and non-adherence to the prescribed procedure with regard to the deviation statement was proved. However, it has not resulted into any financial loss to the Department. Further, the charges of abetment, connivance, collusion, manipulation and causing loss to the Department etc., and the charge that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Rule 3(2)(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, were not substantiated and finally proved and in the final order there is no reference of these charges. Hence, the applicant states that there was no lack of devotion of duty on his part reflecting negligence.
17. It is submitted that the various charges levelled against the applicant were finally confined to two distinct and separate charges of supervisory negligence and non-adherence to the prescribed procedure with regard to the deviation statement, in the final order dated 30.9.2005. The charge with regard to non adherence to the prescribed procedure was that the applicant had to prepare the deviation statement under clause 25.10 of the CPWD Manual 2000 and obtain the approval of the next competent authority as the delegated financial powers for approval by EE(C) was only up to 20% of the agreement amount as per clause 25.1 of CPWD Manual Vol.II. Beyond this limit, the deviations were to be approved by the next higher authority. In accordance with para 25.10 of CPWD Manual Vol.II wherein it is specifically mentioned that in such cases a formal deviation statement was required to be prepared by EE(C) himself for obtaining the approval of Ethe competent authority. The provisions made in the CPWD Manual Vol.II, on the basis of which the charge of non adherence of the prescribed procedure was proved, came into existence in the year 2000 only and were not applicable during the period 1997-98. As per CPWD Manual Vol,.II 1995, which was applicable at that time, the tender accepting authority i.e., AE(C) was responsible for the preparation of the deviation statement and for approval of the same. Hence, the charge of non adherence to the prescribed procedure was proved based on the wrong assumptions and the manual provisions, which were not applicable at that time. A detailed submission on this account was made in the review petition which was not considered by the respondents.
18. The applicant further submits that the charge of supervisory negligence was proved is not correct for the reason that on the expiry of Shri Thakkar, the charges could not be proved against him and the charge cannot sustain against EE(C) independently and it was not made specific with reference to any irregularity committed by AE(C) and it was generalised that being the senior, he was bound to supervise the works of the junior. The said plea was not taken into proper perspective besides other defence taken by him in his explanation. When the authority of one is total and indivisible the other cannot be responsible for the same. The disciplinary authority had accepted many of such submissions though the UPSC had pointed out no specific mention about any particular submission. The details of the works where the irregularities have been committed by the AE(C) find no mention in the charge memorandum. Further, no reasons have been cited and no reference has been made in the order as to how the irregularities were established against Shri Thakkar. Had Shri Thakkar been alive, he would have definitely defended against the charges and would have succeeded without fail. Therefore, when no charges have been proved against the subordinate official and the alleged irregularities committed by AE(C) without any merit, as per several submissions made and many of which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, the charge of supervisory negligence against the applicant cannot independently survive as there was no misconduct on the part of the subordinate. No opportunities were given to the applicant to rebut the charges giving details of the work where the AE(C) committed irregularities. The respondents did not comment specifically on the points raised in his explanation but many of the submissions have been accepted.
19. The applicant further submits that the presumption that no efforts were made to give wide publicity of the tender and there was manipulation of the tender procedure is very hypothetical and erroneous and it has no ground simply on the observation that in some works 4 to 5 tenderers were participated and in some others 2 to 3 only were participated on the basis of the complaint. The tenders were displayed on the notice board in the office of AE(C), Deonar in the Division Office at Sion, Mumbai and other Sub Divisions and when the complainant himself participating in the works referred in the charge memo, this presumption of no wide publicity given holds no reasonability and the ground. The similar pattern of participation of 2 to 3 tenderers in other works executed during the same time in other sub divisions of Mumbai can also be observed.
20. The applicant submits that the AE(C) prepares the estimate on the basis of the requisition received from the competent administrative authority giving detailed scope of works. The AE(C) has no authority to either increase or decrease the scope of the work for which the requisition has been received and he cannot do so as the estimates prepared are further scrutinised and sanctioned by the administrative authority on the basis of the scope of work defined in the requisition. Hence preparation of the estimate by reducing the scope of work in order to keep in the powers of AE(C) is not possible at all. More over preparation of several small estimates separately on the basis of individual requisition for each work is not the splitting of the works as defined in CPWD Manual Vol.II which defines the splitting of one sanctioned estimate as splitting of several split up sub-heads. No such irregularity for the splitting of the works was practiced by AE(C) and no case came to the notice of EE(C) while checking and passing the bills and at no stage any permission was granted to AE(C) to split the main work under several subheads. Hence preparation of several estimates on the basis of requisitions, cannot be treated as the splitting of the works and no irregularity was committed by AE(C) in this regard. Moreover, AE(C) was the competent authority to take the decision for the use of the chemical departmentally or to be supplied by the agency.
21. The applicant further submits that the charges were for non-adherence to the prescribed procedure with regard to the deviation statement only and when the same could not be proved, the violation of all the para-related with the deviation were added including violation of new para 25.2 in place of the old charges. The new charges were not restricted to the deviation statement and the entire matter related to the deviation was added, whereas in the charge memo and final order, the charges were related to the procedures for deviation statement only. For establishing now the charge of supervisory negligence to the adherence of the prescribed procedure in place of adherence to the prescribed procedure, several presumptions like change of the position of the different tenders due to deviation, huge deviation in work amounts to the award of additional works without calling the tender etc., have been made which has no reference under any Manual provision and as per Para 25.2 of the Manual, deviations can be made and permitted.
22. The applicant states that though the violation of paras 25.1 and 25.2 of CPWD Manual 1995 was not the part of the charge memo, there was no violation of paras 25.1 and 25.2 of the Manual 1995 by the applicant. The AE(C) cannot carry out any deviation without the approval of the competent administrative authority that has requisitioned the work. The deviation with the approval of the specific authority or the competent authority is permissible under para 25.2 and there is no violation of the same. From para 25.2 of CPWD Manual, the reviewing authority has deliberately removed the lines except under the specific order of the competent authority by stating that the duty of the applicant as per para 25.2 was not to permit any deviation except trifling deviation except in the case of emergency on page 5-6 of the order. The provision of para 25.2 has been examined in isolation whereas it has to be read along with para 25.3(i), (ii) and (iii) under the heading Deviation to be avoided . Passing the bills along with the deviation by the applicant after due scrutiny of all financial implications and the approval of the competent administrative authority was not wrong at all and violation of para 25.2 and there was no misuse of the financial powers by the AE(C).
23. The applicant states that after a prolonged consideration of Review Application dated 31.12.2005 filed by the applicant and as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of andhra Pradesh, the Review Application was finally disposed of on 10.5.2007 rejecting the review petition without properly considering the factual aspect of the matter. The view of the reviewing authority is not correct that the case of the applicant has been decided on its own merit because the charges against him were linked with the death of Shri Thakkar and when due to death of Shri Thkakkar no penalty could be imposed on him, the charge memo was issued to the applicant.
24. The applicant further states that the punishment period was over in November 2006 and his ad hoc promotion was not regularised after completion of the punishment period and the same has been extended till his retirement or till further orders whichever is earlier vide letter dated 30.11.2007 making it very clear that the Department has no intention for making regular promotions. The Department has also no intention for retaining his position in the seniority of regular SEs for consideration of next promotion in the grade of CE and it resulted his junior Shri P.P.Gupta, after absorption in BSNL, in getting special allowance presently at the rate of Rs.4065/- per month, since October, 2000, which the applicant has been denied. It also resulted in tremendous loss of promotion, seniority and severe financial losses running to several lakhs, thus harsher than many major penalties which the administration did not impose on the applicant.
25. The respondents have filed reply statement on 1.12.2008 stating that the allegations against the applicant were investigated and it was found that the applicant had failed to exercise proper check/supervision over the AE(C) for the irregularities he had been doing. The plea of the applicant that AE(C) was acting within his financial power is not acceptable for the reason that the delegated financial powers could have been withdrawn by the applicant from his subordinate AE(C) and the applicant could have reported the lapses committed by the AE(C) to his superiors which he filed to do. Minor penalty proceedings were therefore instituted against the applicant. Subsequently the allegations were proved against him and hence the penalty was imposed on him after following the due procedure. The penalty is minimum and commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the applicant.
26. It is stated that the allegations of the applicant that the charges were not specific is not correct since the allegations were detailed in the statement of the imputations of misconduct annexed to the charge memo. The applicant's explanation was considered by the competent authority who had observed that the deviations were found to be 80 to 90% in many cases, which showed that there was something wrong in the estimation. The huge number of such cases could have sent enough signal that the subordinate's action is somewhere wrong. Such huge deviations were to be checked by the controlling authority even though the approval of all deviations were within the powers of AE(C). Huge deviations in work amount to award of additional works without calling of tender. Therefore, the check of estimation/TS must be examined by a controlling officer in case 80 to 90% deviations are observed in the work. Hence, the observation of the UPSC in their advice vide 4.3 and 4.4 is very much in order. It was one of the duties assigned to the applicant that if subordinate officer was doing something wrong in his delegated financial powers, the applicant had to exercise control and streamline the execution of work by his subordinate.
27. The respondents further state that the Manual provisions contained in paras 25.1(c) and 25.2 have been violated by the applicant. The duty of the applicant as per para 25.2 was not to permit any deviations, except trifling deviations from the quantities specified in the schedule of quantities, except in case of emergency. But in this case, the subordinate misused his delegated financial authority and the applicant sat as an approver of his acts. The need of submission of deviation statement along with the final bill by AE(C) could not be ruled out, even the sanctioning authority in the instant case was AE(C).
28. The respondents further state that due to sad demise of AE(C), the disicplinary proceedings had to be closed as per CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 and there is nothing wrong in the decision of the disciplinary authority. If the powers are misused by the AE(C), the applicant has enough powers and procedures to stop it as per various paras of the CPWD Manual Vol.II relevant at that time. The disciplinary case against the applicant was decided on its merit and hence is fully justified. If any officer is found to have committed irregularities while discharging his official duties, he has to face the penal consequences of his acts of omissions and commissions. If any officer is awarded any statutory penalty, the same is bound to affect his prospects for promotion. There was no delay in initiating action after the irregularities came to the notice of the competent authority. The rules and procedures with regard to the disciplinary proceedings and those relating
to the DPC for promotion were strictly followed in the case of the applicant. Hence, the respondents pray to dismiss the OA.
29. The applicant has filed rejoinder on 28.11.2008 reiterating the submissions made in the OA. It is stated that the report of the investigation was never a part of the charge memo and the details of the work where AE(C) had committed the irregularities were not brought out in the charge memo. The applicant states that he was keeping a watch on the performance of the AE(C) and when no lapses were observed, there was no question of withdrawal of the delegated financial powers of AE(C) and reporting the lapses committed by the AE(C) to the superiors. The works were investigated by the investigation team during 1998-99 and they should have reported the matter to the competent authority for the withdrawal of AE's delegated powers before initiating a regular disciplinary proceedings against AE(C). But no such matter was reported till the death of the AE(C) in the year 2001.
30. The applicant further states that the minor penalty is not commensurate to the charge of the supervisory negligence as the consequences are unbound and unimaginable in terms of financial hardship and losses running in several lakhs (more than 15 lakhs) of rupees and permanently sealing his promotional prospects.
31. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the submissions made in the OA as well as in the rejoinder. He mainly submitted that the applicant had been charge sheeted merely because the AE(C) had expired in 2001 and the authorities concerned had failed to take any action against him during his life time. It was submitted that defaults, if any, were attributable to the AE(C) and the applicant could not be punished for the same.
The works approved were within the financial limits of the AE(C) for which he alone could be responsible. He relied upon an order of the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 31.7.2007 in O.A.No.2160/2006 and submitted that it was held in that order that where there was non application of mind by the disciplinary authority, the order had to be quashed. The learned counsel for the applicant then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (1979) 2 SCC 286 and submitted that misconduct was different from negligence in performance of duty or inefficiency. He also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (1982) 2 SCC 376 and submitted that where the charge was vague and where the relevant documents were not furnished to the charged officer, there was violation of principles of natural justice and hence dismissal order was illegal. He submitted that in the present case also, the charges are vague and hence the order of punishment must be set aside. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (1986) 3 SCC 454 where the Hon'ble Supreme held on facts that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by non compliance with the principles of natural justice and consequently the order of removal from service was held to be invalid. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 338 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the offence against the employee was not established in the absence of specific charges and the relevant details. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon (2007) 4 SCC 566 and submitted that error of judgment or negligence could not amount to misconduct and submitted that in the present case, there was no misconduct on the part of the applicant. He very much emphasised the point that the charge sheet had quoted violation of CPWD Manual Volume-II, 2000 whereas the said Manual was not applicable during the period in which the defaults were alleged to have occurred. At that time, the CPWD Manual 1995 was applicable and there was no violation of the rules contained therein. He submitted that the charge of lack of supervisory negligence was very vague and subjectivity was involved in judging the same.
32. As against these submissions, the learned counsels for the respondents submitted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in the entire disciplinary proceedings. When the applicant was served with the charge memo, he did not submit reply in the first instance, even within the time sought by him, with the result that a Memo dated 9.7.2004 had to be given to the applicant for giving him a last opportunity to submit his defence. It was submitted by the learned counsels for the respondents that the Central Administrative Tribunal was not competent to question the correctness of the charge memo and the applicant had not been able to point out any serious mistakes in the disciplinary proceedings.
33. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and have gone through the materials on record. In the first instance, it has to be stated that the authorities cited by the applicant's counsel relate to the facts of those cases and there can be no dispute with the propositions of law enunciated in those authorities. The important question, however, is to consider whether in the present case there is any violation of principles of natural justice or there is any serious irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings.
34. We do not accept the bald submission of the applicant's counsel that since the works involved were within the delegated financial powers of the AE(C),the applicant was not responsible if there were irregularities in the same. It is well settled that the delegation of financial powers is only done for smooth working of any organisation and the responsibility of the officer whose financial powers are delegated is not lessened in any manner. Therefore, the applicant cannot be heard saying that he had no responsibility if the subordinate officer to whom the financial powers had been delegated committed mistakes. The superior officer is bound to supervise the work of the subordinate officer even if the expenditure involved was within the financial powers delegated.
35. We also do not accept the general and broad proposition of the applicant's counsel that since the charges against the real defaulting officer i.e., AE(C) in question were not proved, the charge of supervisory negligence could not be established. In some cases this proposition might be true But where the default is glaring, such proposition cannot be accepted. In the present case, the deviation in the tender quantity was in several cases and in some cases the deviation in the tender quantity was more than 200 per cent. The facts in the present case clearly spoke for lack of supervisory control by the applicant.
36. The applicant's contention that citation of wrong Manual vitiated the charge sheet cannot be accepted because the substance of the matter has to be seen. The order of the reviewing authority had clearly brought out the defaults of the applicant even as per CPWD Manual 1995 and the PandT Manual Vol.II which were in force at the relevant time and, therefore, the applicant cannot contend that he has been punished for violation of the rules which were not in operation at the relevant time.
37. It is well settled that Courts have very limited power in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find any serious flaw in the disciplinary proceedings so as to warrant our intervention. The same can be said about the punishment awarded and therefore we are of the view that we cannot grant any relief to the applicant as prayed in this OA which is dismissed with no order as to costs.