Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
A.K. SEN, J.
Hemendu Bikash Nag - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Civil Revisioin Case No. 3755 (W) of 1969
Decided On : Jan 08, 1973
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(3), 14(8), 14(11) - Disciplinary authority's refusal to disclose the statement of the petitioner's father recorded by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer's report - Refusal of permission to have the assistance of a lawyer at the enquiry - Whether such refusals vitiated the enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Government servant, was charged with misconduct and misbehavior for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The disciplinary authority refused to disclose the statement of the petitioner's father recorded by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer's report. The petitioner was also denied permission to have the assistance of a lawyer at the enquiry. The petitioner challenged the validity of the disciplinary proceeding and the various notices and orders made therein, including the order of penalty of dismissal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the disciplinary authority's refusal to disclose the statement of the petitioner's father and the Investigating Officer's report was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his defense and a breach of principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the refusal of permission to have the assistance of a lawyer at the enquiry was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority's refusal to disclose the statement of the petitioner's father and the Investigating Officer's report was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his defense and a breach of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the refusal of permission to have the assistance of a lawyer at the enquiry was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the disciplinary authority's refusal to disclose the statement of the petitioner's father and the Investigating Officer's report was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his defense and a breach of principles of natural justice because: (a) The statement of the petitioner's father was relevant to the charge against the petitioner and the petitioner was entitled to see what was in the earlier statement; (b) The Investigating Officer's report was relevant to the disciplinary enquiry as it was used by the prosecuting authorities to support the charge against the petitioner; (c) The petitioner was prejudiced by the refusal to disclose these documents as he was unable to cross-examine the Investigating Officer or contradict his evidence. 2. The Court held that the refusal of permission to have the assistance of a lawyer at the enquiry was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself because: (a) The petitioner was faced with a complicated enquiry involving his income, expenditure, and assets covering a period of 20 years; (b) The petitioner was pitted against a trained prosecutor and was not competent to support his own defense; (c) The disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's request for permission to have the assistance of a lawyer on its merits and rejected it on a mistaken idea that the Presenting Officer not being a lawyer, the petitioner was not entitled to any representation by a lawyer.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding from the stage of the enquiry and upto and including the final order of penalty. The respondents were, however, at liberty to proceed afresh from that stage in accordance with law.
1. IN this writ petition the petitioner, Hemendu Bikash Nag challenges the validity of a disciplinary proceeding held under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the said Discipline and Appeal Rules) and the various notices and orders made therein including the order of penalty of dismissal from service dated April 23, 1969.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, received a secret information that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by corrupt and illegal means. After certain preliminary enquiries a case for investigation was started against the petitioner in course of which different persons were examined including the petitioner and his father Dr. A. K. Nag, Statements were called for from the petitioner also. The exact result of this investigation is not known, but admittedly the Investigating Officer submitted a report to the Secretary, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Government of India, and as a result the impugned disciplinary proceeding was initiated on a charge-sheet dated August 28, 1966. There were two charges framed against the petitioner. The first one was to the effect: CHARGE No. I That Shri H. B. Nag, alias Hemendu Bikash Nag, while functioning in different capacities in the office of the Iron and Steel Control, Calcutta, during the period from 10.5.1943 to 17.4.1962, failed to maintain absolute integrity and committed gross misconduct as a Government servant inasmuch as he was found to have lived beyond his known sources of income thereby over-spending to an extent of Rs.12,771.47 and in addition being in possession of assets valued at Rs.1,04,553.57, leading to the presumption that he incurred these expenses and acquired assets of the aforesaid value by dubious and/or questionable means and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The second charge was to the effect that the petitioner had paid a life insurance premium exceeding Rs.1,000 without any intimation to the prescribed authority and thereby had contravened Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. This charge would no longer be relevant for us as the petitioner had been absolved of it concurrently by all the authorities.
The charge-sheet incorporates a statement of allegations. Such statement in support of the first charge sets out, in the first place, the petitioner's total income during the tenure of his service from the petitioner's total income during the tenure of his service from May 10, 1943 to April 17, 1962, at Rs.1,26,700 which sum is worked out as hereunder :
(1)? Net salary drawn during the period from 10.5.1943 to 17.4.1962 = Rs. 1,06,700.00
(2)? Add to this the income of Dr. A. K. Nag, the father from 1948 – = Rs. 16,800.00
April 1962, Rs. 100 x 12 x 14??????????? `
(3)? Add to this the income of Smt. Uma Devi, wife from 2. 12. 1960 – Rs. 3,200.00
to April 1962, Rs. 200 x 16
Total Rs. 1,26,700.00
3. SUCH statement goes on to set out petitioner's total expenditure during the period from May 10, 1943 to April 17, 1962, at Rs. 1,39,471.47 calculated as in Schedule B which is set out hereunder: -
SCHEDULE?? B
(1)? Insurance premium Rs. 11,371.47
(2)? Difference of house rent drawn and house rent actually paid Rs. 22,349.00
(3)? Electricity Rs. 4,400.00
(4)? Expenses on education of dependants Rs. 4,491.00
(5)? Household expenses on food, clothing, servants and other items Rs. 76,640.00
of daily expenditure
(6)? Expenditure of maintenance of conveyances (car) from 1963 Rs. 5,720.00
to April 1964
(7)? Expenses on marriages Rs. 9,000.00
(8)? Expenses on religious ceremonies Rs. 500.00
(9)? Other expenses for Title Suit No.63 of 1960 for specific Rs. 5,000.00
performance of contract and damage in the Third Court of
Subordinate Judge at Alipore Rs. 1,39,471.00
The above exp
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
