Back
High Court Of Delhi
A.S.SELHI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 92D of 1960
Decided On : 03/28/1967
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - APPOINTMENT OF ENQUIRY OFFICER - DELEGATION OF POWER TO APPOINT ENQUIRY OFFICER - VALIDITY - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - VALIDITY - STANDARD OF PROOF - VIOLATION OF RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an Assistant Inspecting Officer in the India Store Department, was charged with demanding illegal gratification, using official influence for personal advancement, and violating the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules. An enquiry was conducted, and the plaintiff was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was illegal, the punishing authority had no power to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and the dismissal order was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was not illegal, as the Secretary to the Government of India, acting as a delegate of the Government, could appoint a person to collect the materials. The court also held that the punishing authority had the power to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as the Government itself considered the entire materials and the report and came to its own conclusion. The court further held that the dismissal order was not illegal, as valid inferences of facts had been drawn by the Government from the facts and that there was no violation of rules of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was illegal and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the punishing authority had no power to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer? 3. Whether the dismissal order is illegal, ultra vires and void?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delegation of power to appoint an Enquiry Officer was not illegal, as the Secretary to the Government of India, acting as a delegate of the Government, could appoint a person to collect the materials. 2. The punishing authority had the power to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as the Government itself considered the entire materials and the report and came to its own conclusion. 3. The dismissal order was not illegal, as valid inferences of facts had been drawn by the Government from the facts and that there was no violation of rules of natural justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellant joined Government service in 1941 and was promoted as Assistant Inspecting Officer (Technical) in 1942. He was posted in the India Store Department at London in 1944. In October 1955, the plaintiff visited Copenhagen in connection with the inspection of stores purchased from M/s Bruel and Kjaer and issued a certificate in pursuance of inspection on 24/10/1955. The defendant. Union of India, on a report framed four charges against the plaintiff;
(I) demanding illegal gratification from the firm M/s Bruel and Kjaer;
(II) using official influence for personal advancement;
(III) violation of Rule C. C. S. (Conduct) Rules, 1955.
(IV) violation of Rule 3 of the C. C. S. (Conduct) Rules, 1955.
( 2 ) THE two principal allegations against the plaintiff were that:-
(I) for signing certain documents in connection with the inspection of stores, he demanded and obtained from M/s Bruel and Kjaer (hereinafter to be referred as the firm) a sum of D. Kr. 1,000. 00 by way of illegal gratification; and
(II) during his stay at Copenhagen, the bill of "hotel Richmond", where the plaintiff stayed for one night, was paid by the said firm.
( 3 ) ABOUT a month after the inspection, the firm addressed a letter dated the 29/11/1955 to their agents in India, M/s Eastern Electrical and Engineering Company, Bombay, advising the shipment of the stores and complaining of the demand and payment of D. Kr. 1,000. 00 to the plaintiff. The firm in the letter, inter alia, stated "in that connection, we want to advise you that Mr. A. S. Selhi who stayed in Denmark for several days, and made a very profound examination of the equipment, before his signing the required documents, demanded a payment of Dr. Kr. 1,000. 00 equal to 50-O-Od for his services. Of course we could only be highly surprised for a demand of that size as we have never incorporated such high costs in our circulations. As Mr. Selhi, however, insisted, we found ourselves forced to pay the amount in order to have the documents duly signed. " The firm also enquired whether it was a normal procedure and who was expected to bear such costs. On 9/1/1956, the firm s agent in India complained to the High Commissioner for India and on 20/2/1956, Dr. S. K. Mitra, Deputy Director-General, India Stores Department, London, submitted a report after making confidential ex parte enquiries. A formal charge-sheet was framed by Shri M. R. Sachdev, Secretary to the Government of India, and memorandum dated 31/3/1956, Exhibit D. 7, was sent to the Deputy High Commissioner for being addressed to the plaintiff. The said memorandum inter alia required the plaintiff to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The said memorandum further recited that it had been decided to hold a formal departmental enquiry against the plaintiff under rule 55 of the said Rules. The formal charges and the facts on which the said charges were based were annexed to the said memorandum. In clause (3) of the memorandum, the name of the Enquiry Officer was left blank. Since considerable arguments have been addressed to us on the said omission of the named it is appropriate to read the said clause (3) which is as. under:-
"the written statement of defence, if any, of Shri Sethi should be submitted to Shri. . . . . . . . . . . . who has been appointed to hold the enquiry before the 15/4/1956. "
( 4 ) EXTRACT from confidential demi-official letter. Exhibit D. W. 1 /1 from Shri M. R. Sachdev, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply to the Deputy High Commissioner for India, London, shows that Shri Sachdev asked the Deputy High Commissioner to appoint a suitable enquiry officer and fill the blank in clause (3) of the charge-sheet before serving the same on the plaintiff. Shri J. D. Shukla, Director-General, India Store Department was, it appears, appointed as Enquiry Officer, wh
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
