Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Dismissal of Senior Auditor In CAG Office

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Senior Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. In doing so, the court refused to interfere with his dismissal from service imposed in 2005.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting S.C. Vohra's challenge to the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of dismissal.

At the outset, the bench reiterated that the High Court does not sit in appeal over departmental findings and that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining procedural fairness and the decision-making process.

That said, the court noted that the tribunal was “not entirely correct” in invoking the principle of res judicata as an absolute bar. Even so, it held that the petitioner's challenge failed on its merits and did not warrant interference.

Vohra was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in 1969 and was later promoted as Senior Auditor. Allegations were that between November 1996 and May 1999, he unauthorisedly conducted Central Excise audits of industrial units in the Okhla Industrial Area. He was accused of issuing audit memos and audit completion certificates without authority. He was also accused of impersonating an Assistant Audit Officer by misusing the official seal and signing in that capacity.

Following a complaint received in May 1999, a fact-finding inquiry was initiated. Records were collected from the concerned industrial units. These documents were then sent for forensic examination. The inquiry officer ultimately held the charges proved.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service in May 2005. The dismissal was affirmed in appeal. Later, after a tribunal remand limited to the issue of proportionality of punishment, the Appellate Authority reiterated the dismissal in February 2007.

In the present proceedings, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary action was vitiated by delay. However, the High Court rejected the contention. It held that the time taken for investigation, collection of records, and forensic analysis satisfactorily explained the delay. It further noted that no real prejudice to the petitioner's defence had been shown.

The court also addressed the argument on motive. It held that proof of personal gain or motive was not required once unauthorised audits and impersonation were established. According to the bench, the misconduct involved misuse of an official position by an employee of a constitutional authority.

Turning to the question of punishment, the court held that the misconduct went to the root of the employer-employee relationship. It therefore declined to interfere with the penalty, observing:

“The punishment imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate or such as would shock the conscience of this Court.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.