Srinivasan, J. - (1.) The first respondent who was a senior officer in the Cholera Research Centre (now known as National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Disease) had for over a period of ten years wrongly claimed House Rent Allowance to the tune of Rs. 16,819.95. Under the relevant Rules, an officer or employee residing in his own house could claim House Rent Allowance only if the annual rental value as assessed for municipal purposes was more than 10% of the salary. The annual rental value of the house occupied by the first respondent which was his own as assessed for tax purposes and entered in the Municipal Registers was much less than 10% of his salary. However, he obtained certificates from the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and secretary of the Municipality that the rental value of the premises "may be safely committed" at a particular amount per month which was in excess of 10% of his salary. He produced such certificate in support of his statement that the monthly rental value actually assessed for municipal purposes was in excess of 10% of his salary and claimed House Rent Allowance. Unfortunately for him, the Internal Audit Party found out the game which lead to a departmental enquiry against him. He was found guilty and removed from service with a disqualification from future service under the council.
(2.) The first respondent challenged the order in a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. A learned single Judge held that the enquiry against him was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and quashed the order. On appeal, a Division Bench affirmed that finding. But strangely, the Bench went one step further and held that even if the charges were true, it would only prove that the first respondent was indiscreet and there was no misconduct on his part. It is that judgment which is assailed in this appeal.
(3.) Even at the outset, we wish to point out that the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court that even if the charges were true, there was no misconduct is shocking especially when benefits have been obtained from out of public funds on false certificates. Fortunately, learned counsel for the first respondent appearing before us did not justify that view of the Bench. Hence, it is unnecessary to dwell upon it for long. Suffice it to hold that the view of the Division Bench of the High Court is obviously wrong and it is hereby overruled.;