VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 137
381
Court not concerned to decide whether the
punishment imposed on the charges held proved
by the department, provided it is justified by the
Rules, is appropriate having regard to the
misdemeanour ultimately established.
Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur,
1972 SLR SC 355
The respondent was employed as a Section Officer in the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry. On 23-6-56, Sri Nand Kumar,
who had applied to the Ministry on 14-6-56 for licences to set up
some steel re-rolling mills handed over a cheque to him for Rs. 2500
in favour of Sri Sundaram, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry. On the
reverse of the cheque, there was an endorsement in the handwriting
of the respondent, “Please pay to Shri Sardar Bahadur” and beneath
it there was a signature purporting to be that of Sri Sundaram. There
was another endorsement on the cheque in the hand-writing of the
respondent, “Please collect and credit the amount to my account”
and the amount of the cheque was credited to the account of the
respondent.
He was prosecuted by the Special Police Establishment
under the Prevention of Corruption Act and was acquitted. He was
then proceeded against on the charges (a) that he failed to inform
Sri Sundaram that a cheque in his name had been issued by Sri
Nand Kumar; (b) that he failed to inform Sri Sundaram that a cheque
bearing Sri Sundaram’s signature had been handed over to him by
Sri Nand Kumar and (c) that he borrowed the amount of Rs. 2500
representing the amount of the cheque from Sri Nand Kumar without
the previous sanction of Government and thus contravened rule 13(5)
of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 which prohibits a
Government servant from borrowing money from a person with whom
he is likely to have official dealings. The Inquiring Officer exonerated
him of the first two charges but held that the third charge was proved.