Sub: - Disciplinary proceedings against Shri Tej Pal Singh, Deputy Director

(Horticulture) (Retired) under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

As per CVC advice vide OM.022/W&H/004-505342 dated 24.02.2022, disciplinary

proceedings under rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been initiated against Shri Tej Pal
Singh, Deputy Director (Horticulture) (Retired), vide MoHUA’s Memorandum No.
10/V-22/(A-216)/2017-VS-I/AV.III dated 25.02.2022, CO has denied the charges vide his letter
dated 14.03.2022
Sh. Tej Pal Singh, CO (Present address as per PIMS data is F-85, Gali No. 3, East Vinod Nagar,
New Delhi-110091) vide his letter dated 14.03.2022 addressed to The Under Secretary (Sh.
K.B. Tripathi), Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, AV Unit submitted the reply to on dt.
24/02/2022. The reply furnished is analyzed as below:-

I have collected the above referred Memorandum signed by you on behalf of the President of
India on 10th March, 2022. As I was not at my residence and have been out of Delhi due to
some personal work at my native place and on coming back to my residence on 10.3.2022 I
have collected the same from Deputy Director (H) on receiving a message for the same. The
aforesaid Memo has been issued on 25.02.2022 but not delivered to me on 25.2.2022 instead
delivered on 10.3.2022, itself shows that factually the date of issue shall be 10.03.2022.
This Memorandum, inter alia other officers, proposes to hold inquiry under Rule 9 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972. The above Memorandum is issued in a very casual manner it is not even
marked at my residential address. It may be appreciated that after retirement, it is not expected
that the erstwhile officer will have to come to some office to collect the correspondence. Thius
was also not even marked at my erstwhile official address.
a. The work of agreement No. 77 was completed 23.09.2017 and completion recorded
23.09.2017, before my taking over charge of DD(H) on 01.11.2017. It is evidently clear
that all records/ measurements in CMB were maintained under control and supervision
of my predecessor DD(H). AS such, whatever omission or commission in execution of
work and related documents/ records deemed to have been occurred prior to 23.09.2017/
01.11.2017 (my assuming the charge of DDH) and I can not be held responsible for
maintenance of records and sanction of Extra Item by my predecessor for incorrect or
beyond financial power during passing of pending 1 st R.A. bill prepared up to
15.09.2017 as per fortnightly report of labour signed by AD(H)/SO(H)/ contractor
before completion of work on 23.09.2017 duly checked and scrutinized by AAO/ drafts
man who are supposed to indicate deficiencies in bill while processing for payment.
Thus, any discrepancy in measurement etc. in CMB submitted by contractor for
verification is more than 4 years from the date of issue of charge sheet i.e. 25.02.2022
received on 10.03.2022 and is time barred by limitation.
Moreover, the points rose in your Memo. No. 10/V-22/A-216/2017-V.S.I dated
03.09.2021 and subsequently raised in Article -1 to Article -3 have been clarified again
as under:-
 Article-1

“In this Article-1, the allegation is that I have passed lst RA bill on 26.2.2018 which was pending and
submitted in Division office prior to my joining and it ia alleged that Substitute item had been
unauthorized sanctioned by my predecessor. It is to clarify that the my predecessor is equally
competent as DD(H) and when he has passed the item and incorporated in bill in his incumbency. 1st
RA bill was pending for four months and on a complaint I have passed the bill for a work which was
completed before my joining. As such whatever decision or approval given by my predecessor DD(H)
is considered as authentic and correct and during scrutiny of bill neither AAO/ Draftsman has pointed
out that the item passed by my predecessor is beyond his financial power and at no point the rate of
item and quantity executed is disputed by any authority including vigilance . As such by releasing
payment of Substitute Item approved by previous DD(H). It cannot attract any misconduct on my part
rather I have sorted out complaint of non-payment of RA bill which is a sort of Provisional Advance to
contractor subject to adjustment in final. Thus the allegation of Rs33,67,256/ unauthorizedly has no
sanctity and Article -1 is void and may please be dropped being time barred by limitation of four years
as elaborated above.”

Article-2

“In this Article-2, the allegation is that proper records of labour not prepared along with attendance
register and no details of payment of wages through bank or ECS has been ensured before passing lst
RA Bill. In this regard it is to point out that the reference dated 20.3.2017, 31.8.2017, 7.9.2017 were
not put up before me by AAO/Draftsman, then how I can assess the facts occurred before my joining. I
have to rely on the documents put up before me of the period prior to my joining. I have seen the fort
nightly report duly signed by JE/AE/Contractor up to 15.9.2017 attached with 1st RA Bill and it
indicates that number of labour deployed. As regards payment, it can be checked at the time of
completion of work by the then JE/AE/DD(H) and after completion of work, it is not practical to verify
the same and the certificate in 2nd & final bill can evidently prove that the same is certified by JE/AE.
Moreover, register pertains for the period prior of my joining and JE/AD(H) and my predecessor
DD(H) has not pointed out any deficiency during handing over charge to me. As such how I can be
held responsible for omission on part of my predecessor. Moreover the references given in this article
is more than 4 years of issue of charge sheet (25.2.2022/10.3.2022) as such it is time bar by limitation
and Article-2 is void and may kindly be dropped.”

Article-3

“In Article-3, the allegation is that the agreement item no.8 have not been recorded but false entry
on account of disposal of malba to ensure compliance to condition no 2 of special condition. In
this regard it is to·clarify that all the measurement in stacks were recorded before completion on
23.09.2017 and stack measurements were done as per CPWD Specification 2009 Vol-I page 21
para 1.27.2.2 and other provisions are contradictory in special condition as such CPWD
specification shall be followed. Moreover, the work of Disposal of Malba is measured prior to
23.9.2017 and my joining on 1.11.2017. As such at this belated stage, I cannot verify the actual
measurement and I have to rely on JE/AE measurement. Secondly the period referred to in this
article-3, is prior to 23.09.2017 and is more than 4 years and is time barred by limitation. As such
the Article-3 is void and time barred by limitation of 4 years from date of issue of charge sheet
and may please be dropped.”

In view of facts elaborated above, the charge sheet issued is void due limitation of four years as per
CCS Pension Rule 2021 Rule 8(c) (ii):-
(c) “The departmental proceedings, if not instituted whether before his retirement or during his
reemployment”
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.
Notwithstanding the above harsh realities, the Charge Memorandum dated 25 th February, 2022 was
issued under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. These Rules were repealed and new rules i.e. CCS
(Pension) Rules, 2021 were enacted on 20th December, 2021 through Notification F. No. 38/3/ 2017-
P&PW(A) dated 20th December, 2022 published in the Extraordinary Gazette of Government of India
on the same day. No charge sheet could/ can be issued under any rules which are repealed and thus
became non-existent. Further, no amendment or modification can be made in any document which was
illegal & null & avoid since its beginning.
Moreover, the charges in Article-1 to 3 are time barred by limitation of 4 years from date of occurrence
as clarified above and the charges are void and not sustainable. It is requested that charge sheet may
kindly be dropped and withdrawn

Articles of Charge Statement of Defence by Comments of Vigilance

Sh. Tej Pal Singh
ARTICLE-1

1st RA Bill for the work Reply of Sh. Tej Pal Singh
executed under Agreement no.
is not acceptable because
77/ DDH/HD-(East)M/ PWD/ DD(H) could sanction
2016-17 was passed and paid
Substitute Item up to Rs.
by Shri Tej Pal Singh, Deputy 9,00,000/- only. (15% of
Director (Hort.) (Now
14024458 = Rs. 2103669/-
Retd.), CPWD on 26 Feb 2018.
th
and 30% of 3000000 = Rs.
9,00,000/-). This Substitute
This bill included payment of
Item had been wrongly
one Substitute item, which had
sanctioned by then DD(H),
been unauthorizedly sanctioned
Shri S.N Labh as the
by previous DD(H) as the
amount of this statement is
sanctioned amount of this
much more than his
Substitute Item was Rs.
sanctioning power. Shri
54,46,674/-, beyond financial
T.P. Singh, before passing
powers delegated to the DD(H).
 the 1St RA bill for this
As per Appendix-1(Sl. no. 33) work, should have ensured
of CPWD Works Manual 2014, that this substitute item is
regarding “Delegation of properly sanctioned by the
Financial Powers” the competent authority.
competent authority to sanction
this Substitute item of Rs 54.46
Lakh was Chief Engineer.
Thus, in this case despite the
fact that sanction from the
competent authority for the
Substitute item of Rs 54.46
Lakh was not available on
record, Sh. T.P. Singh passed
and paid Rs 33,67,256 for this
item in the 1st RA Bill
unauthorizedly.
Thus, Shri Tej Pal Singh,
Deputy Director (Hort.) (Now
Retd.), CPWD unauthorizedly
passed and paid an amount of
Rs 33,67,256 for the substitute
item in the 1st RA bill for this
work, without obtaining/
ensuring sanction of the
competent authority.

ARTICLE-2 Sh. Tej Pal Singh has

submitted that:-
Reply of Sh. Tej Pal Singh
The General Terms and is not acceptable because
Condition of the Agreement No. the completion for this
77/ DD(H)/HD (East) M/ work had already been
PWD /2016-17, at page 159 of recorded by Shri Vijay
the Agreement, specifies the Kumar, DD(H)
number of Mali and Unskilled predecessor of Shri T.P.
Mali to be deployed on daily Singh, on 23.09.2017 and
basis, for different items of this 1st RA bill was paid by
work. However, detail Shri T.P. Singh after this,
calculation showing the number therefore, Shri T.P. Singh
of workers actually deployed by should have ensured that
the contractor vis-à-vis the Original Attendance
minimum workers required, as
mandated in the Agreement, has
not been carried out.
Special Terms and Condition of
the Agreement at page 160 of
the Agreement specifies that
daily attendance of labour shall
be taken & recorded in the
Attendance register. However,
no Attendance register of
labour has been found on
record.
Also, the GCC 2014 modified
provision at page 114 of the
Agreement mandates
that “Wages due to every
worker shall be paid to him
direct by contractor through
Bank or ECS or online transfer
to his bank account” and
provides that the contractor
should obtain a certificate from
Junior Engineer in this
regard. However, no detail of
payment to the workers by the
contractor has been attached
with the 1stRA bill.
The quality of the work
executed by the contractor was
very poor as evident from the
Completion Certificate recorded
by SO(H), AD(H) & DD(H).
Had the contractor deployed the
requisite labour as per norms,
the quality of the work would
not have been so bad.
Register is kept safely in
the Division office and
copy of the same attached
with bill which was passed
and paid by him. The poor
maintenance work done by
the contractor is very
much evident from the
Completion Certificate
recorded for this work.
Had the contractor
deployed the requisite
labour as per norms the
quality of the work would
not have been so bad. In
addition to this, vide letter
no. 54(works)/ East/
PWD/ 2017-18 1544 dated
28.07.2017, 54(works)/
East/ PWD/ 2017-18/ 1822
dated 31.08.2017 and
54(works)/ East/ PWD/
2017-18/ 1853 dated
07.09.2017, DD(H),
HD(East) had intimated to
the agency regarding the
deployment of very less
labour at site. Also, details
of payment to the workers
by the contractor are not
available on record. This
amply proves that the
contractor had deployed
even lesser labour than for
which recovery has been
proposed in this bill.
Recovery for 1229 nos labour
(for the period 06.03.2017 to
20.03.2017) @500/- = Rs.
614500/- have been made in the
1st RA bill.

DD(H), HD(East)M, vide letter

no. 54(odZ)/bZLV/yks-fu-
fo-/2017-18/1544 fnukWd 28.07
.2017, 54(odZ)/bZLV/yks-fu-
fo-/2017-18/1822 fnukWd 31.08
.2017 and 54(odZ)/bZLV/yks-
fu-fo-/2017-18/
1853 fnukWd 07.09.2017, had
intimated to the Agency
regarding the less deployment of
labour at site. From these letters,
it is evident that shortage of
labour continued at the site even
after 20.3.2017.
As evident from above, the
actual labour deployed by the
agency, at the site of work was
much less than that required as
per norms even after 20.3.2017.

However, despite above

communications on record from
DD(H) to the Agency, no
recovery for lesser labour
deployed by the Agency at the
site of work was proposed
beyond 20.03.2017 by the Sub-
division and Sh. Tej Pal Singh
ignoring all these facts passed
and paid the 1st RA Bill without
making recovery for the less
deployment of labour during the
period after 20.3.2017.
As per Para 7.10.2(1) of CPWD
Works Manual 2014, Executive
Engineer/DD(H)has to accept
general responsibility for the
correctness of the bill as a
whole.

Thus, Shri Tej Pal Singh,

Deputy Director (Hort.) (Now
Retd.), CPWD is found
responsible for not ensuring
proper records of labour
deployed by the Agency at site
of work and payment made by
the Agency to the labour etc as
per General Terms and
Condition and Special Terms
and Condition and modified
provision of GCC 2014 at
page 114 and 160 of the
Agreement before passing and
making payment of 1st RA Bill
to the Agency.

Shri Tej Pal Singh, Deputy

Director (Hort.) (Now Retd.),
CPWD extended undue
benefit to the contractor by
not making complete and
accurate recovery from the
bill on account of lesser
labour deployed by the
agency, at the site of work
after 20.3.2017 and also
violated Para 7.10.2(1) of
CPWD Works Manual 2014
by not ensuring the
correctness of the Bill as a
whole.
ARTICLE-3 Sh. Tej Pal Singh has
submitted that:-

The Condition no. 2 of Special

Reply of Sh. Tej Pal Singh
Condition for Malba Disposal at
is not acceptable because
page 161 of the Agreement no.
The condition no. 2 clearly
77/DD(H)/HD (East) M/
specify that “The payment
PWD /2016-17 stipulates that

“The payment of disposal of
Malba shall be made against the
quantities of malba as per
receipt issued by EDMC
authority at the dumping ground
at Ghazipur or other nearby
specified dumping ground of
EDMC.”
In 1st RA bill, payment for
disposal of 2756.34 cum of
Malba against Agreement Item
no. 8 has been made by Shri Tej
Pal Singh, then Deputy Director
(Hort.). However, requisite
receipt issued by EDMC
authority for disposal of Malba
was not available on record.
An amount of Rs.2,62,498 has
been paid in 1st RA bill against
Agreement Item no. 8 (price
BOQ item no. 9.
Also, this Agreement Item no. 8
– has been recorded on CMB
no. 22. As seen from page no.
91 to 93 in this CMB, entry
from date 02/01/2017 and
02/02/2017 on page 91, from
03/02/2017 to 12/02/2017 on
page 92, from 12/02/2017 to 15-
02-2017 on page 93 have been
recorded by SO(H).
The measurement of any item is
to be recorded in CMB strictly
as per their sequence of
occurrence. It is not possible to
record the measurements of two
different dates on a single page
of CMB, as after every date of
measurement, printout should be
taken and signed and kept in
record. Also, the measurement
of disposal of Malba are to be
of disposal of malba shall
be made against the
quantities of malba as per
receipt issued by EDMC
authority at the dumping
ground at Ghazipur or
other nearby specified
dumping ground of
EDMC.” While the
condition no. 6 states that
“Contractor shall pay
initially the actual EDMC
dumping ground tax
(including advance amount
if required by EDMC to be
deposit with them) to the
EDMC authorities / in-
charge at dumping ground
(Ghazipur) or other nearby
specified dumping ground
of EDMC and the same
shall be reimbursed from
time to time to the
contractor by department
on production of receipt of
charges.” Condition no. 6
is about EDMC Dumping
Ground Tax and not any
other charges. Also, it may
be true that the mode of
measurement of
Agreement Item no. 8 is
cum while the EDMC
issues receipt of Disposal
in MT but still the Malba
should have been disposed
of in the EDMC dumping
ground and corresponding
entry of receipt should
have been made against the
measurement of
Agreement Item no. 8 done
in MB. Thus it can be
deduced from the reply of
recorded prior to its disposal i.e.
pre-measurements have to be
done, as the measurement of
Malba cannot be recorded after
its actual disposal. Some
manipulation in measurements
is observed in CMB no. 22,
pages 95 to 100, 103 to 107, 111
to 115 and 117 to 122.
This clearly shows that actual
measurement of Agreement
item no. 8 have not have not
been recorded but false entry on
account of disposal of Malba
has been recorded by the
concerned SO(H)/ AD(H).
Thus, Shri Tej Pal Singh,
Deputy Director (Hort.) (Now
Retd.) is found responsible for
failing to ensure compliance to
Condition no. 2 of Special
Condition for Malba Disposal
(page 161) of the Agreement
while passing and making
payment amounting to Rs.
2,62,498/- against Agreement
Item no. 8 (price BOQ item
no. 9) in 1st RA bill for this
work and also responsible for
making such payment based
on the false measurements.
Thus, by his above acts, the
said Shri Tej Pal Singh,
Deputy Director
(Horticulture),
(Retired) committed grave
misconduct, exhibited lack of
devotion to duty and acted in
the manner unbecoming of a
Government servant, thereby
contravening Rule 3(1)(i),
3(1)(ii) & 3(1)(iii) CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Shri T.P. Singh that Malba
Disposal receipts were not
available as the Mulba was
not disposed of in EDMC
dumping ground. Even
though the work had been
completed prior to Shri
T.P. Singh joining but still
he should have informed
his higher officers in this
regard and taken their
taken concurrence before
making payment for this
item. Shri T.P. Singh
submission regarding
recording of measurements
corresponding to different
dates on same page of
CMB is not acceptable.
Even if some correction
are to be made in the
measurement sheet
submitted by the
contractor, it has to be
submitted before the same
has been signed and
checked by the officer
concerned. The item of
Disposal of malba cannot
be recorded after it has
been removed from site.
The measurements of
Disposal Mulba need to be
recorded before its
removal as after its
removal there is no way to
measure and record it.
Hence manipulation in
recording measurements of
item for Disposal of Malba
is clearly established. In 1st
RA bill, payment for
disposal of 2756.34 cum of
Malba against Agreement
Item no. 8 has been made
by Shri Tej Pal Singh, then
Deputy Director (Hort.).
However, requisite receipt
issued by EDMC authority
for disposal of Malba was
not available on record. An
amount of Rs.2,62,498 has
been paid in 1st RA bill
against Agreement Item
no. 8 (price BOQ item no.
9. Thus, Shri Tej Pal
Singh, Deputy Director
(Hort.) (Now Retd.) is
found responsible for
failing to ensure
compliance to Condition
no. 2 of Special Condition
for Malba Disposal (page
161) of the Agreement
while passing and making
payment amounting to Rs.
2,62,498/- against
Agreement Item no. 8
(price BOQ item no. 9) in
1st RA bill for this work
and also responsible for
making such payment
based on the false
measurements.

Sh. Tej Pal Singh in his

reply dated 14.3.2022 has
further stated that:-

“In view of facts

elaborated above, the
charge sheet issued is void
due limitation of four years
as per CCS Pension Rule
2021 Rule 8 2(c) (ii):-

(c) “The departmental

proceedings, if not
 instituted whether
before his retirement of
during his
reemployment”
(ii) shall not be in
respect of any event
which took place more
than four years before
such institution.

Notwithstanding the above

harsh realities, the Charge
Memorandum dated 25th
February, 2022 was issued
under the CCS(Pension)
Rules, 1972. These Rules
were repeated and new
rules i.e. CCS(Pension)
Rules, 2021 were enacted
on 20th December, 2021
through Notification F. No.
38/3/2017-P&PW(A) dated
20th December, 2022
published in the
Extraordinary Gazette of
Government of India on
the same day. No charge
sheet could/can be issued
under any rules which are
repealed and thus became
non-existent. Further, no
amendment or
modification can be made
in any document which
was illegal & null & void
since its beginning.
Moreover, the charges in
Article-1 to 3 are time
barred by limitation of 4
years from date of
occurrence as clarified
above and the charges are
void and not sustainable.
It is requested that charge
 sheet may kindly be
dropped and withdrawn.”

. The charge sheet is issued

correctly because:-
a. 1st RA bill for the
work executed under
Agmt. no. 77/DDH/
HD(East)M/PWD/2016-
17, which had various
deficiencies/
shortcomings, was
passed and paid by him
on 26.02.2018.
Therefore his limitation
period for this lapses
ends on 25.02.2022.
b. The completion
Certificate for the work
executed under Agmt.
no. 77/DDH/
HD(East)M/PWD/2016-
17 mentioned numerous
defects/ shortcomings in
the work. Shri T.P
Singh did not take any
action for removal/
rectification of theses
defects/ shortcomings
and subsequent
finalization of the work
till his last date in office
i.e. 28.02.2018.
Therefore his limitation
period for this lapses
ends on 28.02.2022.
c. For the work
executed under Agmt.
no. 41/DDH/
HD(East)/PWD/2016-
17- No action taken for
finalization of pending
Completion Certificate
and subsequent payment
of the final bill till his
last date in office i.e.
upto 28.02.2018
Therefore his limitation
 period for this lapses
ends on 27.02.2022.
Therefore the limitation
period did not end before
the issue of the charge sheet
which was issued on
25.02.2022.

In chapter XIV of the

CCS(Pension ) Rules 2021,
it is mentioned that:-

Interpretation.-
Where any doubt arises as
to the interpretation of these
rules, it shall be referred,
for decision, to the
Government in the
Department of Pension and
Pensioners’ Welfare or the
Department of Personnel
and Training, depending
upon the rule or the subject
on which a decision is
required and the
Department which is
concerned with that rule or
subject. 86. Power to relax.-
Where any Ministry or
Department of the
Government is satisfied that
the operation of any of these
rules causes undue hardship
in any particular case, that
Ministry or Department, as
the case may be, may, by
order for reasons to be
recorded in writing,
dispense with or relax the
requirements of that rule to
such extent and subject to
such exceptions and
conditions as it may
consider necessary for
dealing with the case in a
just and equitable manner :
Provided that no such order
shall be made except with
the concurrence of the
Department of Pension and
Pensioner’s Welfare or the
Department of Personnel
and Training, depending
upon the rule or the subject
on which a relaxation is
required and the
Department which is
concerned with that rule or
subject. 87. Repeal and
Saving.– (1) On the
commencement of these
rules, every rule [including
Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972],
regulation or order
including Office
Memorandum (hereinafter
referred to in this rule as the
old rule) in force
immediately before such
commencement shall, in so
far as it provides for any of
the matters contained in
these rules, cease to
operate. 146 (2)
Notwithstanding such cesser
of operation,– (a) (i) every
nomination for the payment
of gratuity; and (ii) every
form regarding the details
of family of a Government
servant for the purpose of
Family Pension; (iii) every
formal application for the
sanction of pension, which a
Government servant had
made or given under the old
rule, shall be deemed to
have been made or given
under the corresponding
provisions of these rules. (b)
any nomination for the
payment of gratuity or any
form regarding the details
of family of a Government
servant for the purpose of
Family Pension required to
be made or given by a
government servant under
the old rule but not made or
given before the
commencement of these
rules shall be made or given
after such commencement in
accordance with the
provisions of these rules. (c)
any case which pertains to
the authorisation of pension
to a Government servant
who had retired before the
commencement of these
rules and is pending before
such commencement shall
be disposed of in
accordance with the
provisions of the old rule as
if these rules had not been
made. (d) any case which
pertains to the authorisation
of gratuity and family
pension to the family of a
deceased Government
servant or of a deceased
pensioner and is pending
before the commencement of
these rules shall be disposed
of in accordance with the
provisions of the old rule as
if these rules had not been
made. (e) subject to the
provisions of clauses (c) and
(d) anything done or any
action taken under the old
rule shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under
the corresponding
provisions of these rules.

Since the case was

processed under the CCS
(Pension) rules 1972 and the
charge sheet was issued
accordingly. The CCS
(Pension) rules 2021 came
into force from 20.12.2021
whereas the charged officer
 got retired on 28.02.2018.
Therefore the rules at the
time of retirement
applicable on him were CCS
(Pension) rules 1972. The
new rules are not totally
different from the earlier
rules but there are certain
modifications regarding
early processing of the
pension cases etc. Therefore
there is no illegality in
issuing of the charge sheet
because the Pension Rules
were applicable on the
Charged Officer. It is
nowhere written in the new
pension rules 2021 that the
earlier rules are not
applicable.

.
In View of above it is proposed that:-

(i) Case may be sent again to the Central Vigilance Commission so that corrigendum may
be issued to the charge sheet as per the prevailing Pension Rules
(ii) I/O and P/O may be appointed in this case.

Since Sh. Tej Pal Singh, Deputy Director (Horticulture) (Retired) (CO) has denied all the
charges and has requested that the Charge Sheet be dropped / Withdrawn therefore, in view of
above it is proposed that an Inquiry may be conducted to inquire into the charges.

Shri Tej Pal Singh, Deputy Director (Horticulture) (Retired) has retired on Superannuation on
28.02.2018 from O/o DD(Hort.) M-214, PWD, GNCTD, Delhi. His present address as per
PIMS record is F-85, Gali No. 3, East Vinod Nagar, New Delhi-110091 his permanent address
is P.O. Jassi Nagar, Baheri, Balreilly, Uttar Pradesh.

It is proposed to appoint Shri Komalkant Pradhan, SE(Inquiry), CPWD as Inquiring Authority

under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to inquire into the charges against Sh.
Tej Pal Singh, Deputy Director (Horticulture) (Retired) and in exercise of powers conferred by
Sub Rule (5)(c) of the Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, and Shri Anurag Sharma, EOD-
IV, Vigilance Unit, CPWD as PO to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in
support of the articles of charges.
A Draft (DFA/__________) order is also put up for kind perusal & necessary action please.
Submitted for kind perusal & onward submission to MoHUA. Before submission to MoHUA,
Comment/ approval of DG, CPWD may kindly be obtained.

Anurag Sharma
EOD-IV Vigilance, CPWD