SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., G.K. MITTER, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
K. R. Deb, Appellant
Versus
The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 612 of 1967, D/7-4-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi Sr. Advocate. (Mr.Vineet Kumar, Advocate, with him), for Appellant: Mr. O. P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, (M/s Ram Panjwani and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - C. C. S. (C.C. A), Rules 1957 - Rule15 (4) - Appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Central Excise - Concealing fact of realisation - Appeal by special leave - Appellant was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Central Excise in a temporary vacancy and he reported for duty - He was alleged to have detained five maunds of onions from the house of one - It is further alleged that one handed over a sum of Rs. 100 to appellant, through one, but appellant did not mention realisation of this amount in his seizure report - Appellant applied for copies of certain documents - Be submitted his written statement of defence - In this written statement appellant denied the charge - Collector by his letter dated appointed , Examiner of Accounts Central Excise and Land Customs as Inquiry Officer – Held, In Court view the rules do not contemplate an action such as-was taken by Collector - It seems to Court that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against appellant - Procedure adopted was not only not warranted by rules but was harassing to appellant - Judicial Commissioner the point was put slightly differently and it was urged that the proceedings showed that Disciplinary Authority had made up it mind to dismiss appellant - Judicial Commissioner held that on facts it could not be said that Disciplinary Authority was prejudiced against the appellant - But it seems to Court that on the material on record a suspicion does arise that Collector was determined to get some Inquiry Officer to report against appellant - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
SIKRI, CJI.: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Tripura and Agartala dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant, K.R. Deb.
2. The relevant facts are these. The appellant was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Central Excise in a temporary vacancy on September 20, 1958 and he reported for duty on October 15, 1958. On May 30, 1959 he was alleged to have detained five maunds of onions from the house of one Sayed Ahmed at Ramendranagar. It is further alleged that one Siddique Ahmed handed over a sum of Rs. 100 to the appellant, through one Harendra Kumar Dutta, on May 31, 1959 but the appellant did not mention the realisation of this amount in his seizure report.
3. The following charge was framed against the appellant by Shri R. C. Mehra, Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs, Shillong:
"That Shri K. R. Deb, Sub -Inspector, was found guilty for concealing the fact of realisation of Rs. 100 from Shri Siddique Ahmed on 31-5-1959 and not reporting the matter in the seizure report or in his diary and thus misappropriated Government money of Rs. 100."
The allegations regarding this charge were supplied to the appellant. The appellant applied for copies of certain documents on December 28, 1960. On March 30, 1961 be submitted his written statement of defence. In this written statement the appellant denied the charge. The Collector by his letter dated May 11, 1961, appointed Shri B. P. Barua, Examiner of Accounts Central Excise and Land Customs as Inquiry Officer. Shri Barua held an inquiry and submitted a report, dated July 3, 1961, holding that the charge framed against the appellant was not proved. The Enquiry Officer concluded.
"There is no conclusive evidence to establish the charge of misappropriation of Government money. It is only established that the goods (5 mds. of onions) were seized from the house of Sri Siddique Ahmed but in his diary and seizure report Sri .K. R. Deb concealed the fact and seizure was shown to have been made on border. The charge does not include such concealment of fact."
4. By order dated August 22, 1961, the Collector, Shri R. C. Mehra appointed Shri R. K. P. Sinha, Superintendent, Central Excise & Land Customs, as Inquiry Officer to conduct a supplementary open inquiry in the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the appellant. The reason for conducting this inquiry is dated in the order thus:
"Shri B. P. Barua Examiner of Accounts, Customs & Central Excise, was previously appointed Inquiry Officer in the case, but he had not recorded an evidence of the prosecution Witnesses, viz, S/Shri Harendra Kr. Dutta, Jagabandhu Patwari, Syed Ahmed and Siddique Ahmed during the course of open enquiry."
5. In his report dated October 12, 1961, the Inquiry Officer reported that "There is nothing on record to prove the alleged acceptance of Rs. 100 by Shri K. R. Deb, Sub-Inspector." In his report he stated that Shri Harendra Kumar Dutta did not appear in the Inquiry though he acknowledged the receipt of summons issued to him. It appeared to the Inquiry Officer that Shri Dutta was not willing to attend the enquiry. In the course of the report he observed;
"Thus the entire story of handing over the money to Sri Harendra Kumar Dutta in the presence of the Sub-Inspector on 31-5-59 topples down. It is also evident that the Sub-Inspector could not have demand the money on 30-5-1959 as the seizure it appears was made in the absence of Shri Siddique Ahmed. The whole episode, it appears therefore, is a cooked up and fabricated to implicate the Sub-Inspector for the seizure he effected."
6. After this report one would have thought that the Collector would make up his minds but instead but the Collector wrote on December 20, 1961, to Shri R. K. P. Sinha, complaining that the report submitted by him had been found to be very sketchy and that he had failed to appreciate the importance of the evidence of Harendra Kumar Dutta a prose
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.