SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th December, 1961
K.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
A. N. D Silva, Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. C. Misra, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. S. P. Varma and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondent.
-held, the Commission has to be consulted under Art. 320(3) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person in employment in civil capacity under the Govt. of India. But it is not an appellate authority over the Enquiry Officer.
-see decision in A.N. D’Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130=(1962) 2 S.C.J.126.
Judgment
SHAH, J. : The appellant was an employee of the Government of India in the Post and Telegraphs Department and held the post of Divisional Engineer Telegraphs at Agra in 1947. In June, 1948, he was transferred to New Delhi as Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, Developing Branch, Posts & Telegraphs Directorate. On September 18, 1948, the appellant was suspended from service and a charge-sheet containing the following two charges was delivered to him :
"(i) That he, with a view to secure illegal gratification for himself and/or for others, committed serious irregularities in the matter of allotment of Telephones in Agra during the period he was Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Agra, and
(ii) That by being a party to commission of gross irregularities in the matter of allotment of Telephones in Agra, he facilitated acceptance of illegal gratification by his subordinates."
An appendix setting out the allegations on the basis of which the charges had been framed was also enclosed, and the appellant was called upon to submit his defence to the charges to the Enquiry Officer named therein. The appellant was further asked to show cause why, in the event of charge (i) being proved, he should not be dismissed from Government Service and, in the event of charge (ii) being proved, he should not be permanently degraded to the rank of the Electrical Supervisor or awarded any other lesser penalty. The appendix consisted of three heads which are as follows :
"(1) Contrary to the order contained in letter No. Eng. P. 768 of 7th February, 1948 from the Post Master General, Lucknow, that no connection, not even a casual connection, should be given out of turn, the following casual connections were opened and in some cases extended and even made permanent. :
(Then were set out 11 instances (a) to (k) of such casual connections given by the appellant. )
(2) Transfers of telephones virtually amounted to allotment of telephones out of turn was allowed in the following cases:
(a)....................
(b)...................
(3) Statements given in writing by Khiali Ram and Shyam Lal relating to illegal gratification given to Mr. Ghambir and Kanaya Lal Sharma respectively."
The appellant submitted his explanation relating to these charges. An enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer and certain witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer held that allegations 1 (b) to 1 (k), 2 (a) and 2 (b) and 3 were established. He observed that the proof in respect of allegation (3) was not such as would be acceptable in a Court of law, but there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellant suddenly changed his attitude towards one Khiali Ram and went so far as to argue the case on his behalf and favoured him with a permanent connection and in the case of Shyam Lal he sanctioned an out-of-turn extension. He accordingly made a report that charges (i) and (ii) in the charge sheet were proved. The report together with the record of the Enquiry Officer was sent by the President of India to the Union Public Service Commission under Art. 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution for their recommendations. The Commission agreed with the view of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant had contravened specific orders issued by the Postmaster General by granting "casual connections" from time to time as shown in the report of the Enquiry Officer. But in the view of the Commission this was at the most either neglect on the part of the appellant in complying with the orders of his superiors, or open defiance as he was not prepared to accept the instructions issued by his superiors. The Commission, however, observed that
"The crux of charges against Mr. D Silva was, however, not that he allowed these connections in defiance of these orders but that he had a motive in doing so. The only evidence that has been given relates to connection No. 283 for Messrs. Khiali Ram Amolak Chand. There may be ground for suspicion but there is nothing on the record to connect Mr. D Silva with receiving illega
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.