- (1.) JUDGEMENT The Union of India, the defendant, has appealed. The suit was for a declaration that the order of the plaintiffs dismissal from service violated Article 311 of the Constitution and was null and void, and for past pendente lite and future salary. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below.
(2.) HARI Om, the plaintiff-respondent, was employed by the Union of India as Sub-post Master at Lesari Gate Post Office, Meerut. At the instance of the Post Master General, Calcutta, the Special Police Establishment enquired into the allegations against the plaintiff that he was putting used postal stamps on parcels etc. sent out from Lesari Gate Post Office. The Lesari Gate Post Office as well as the house of the plaintiff was searched on 8th July, 1953, at which a good number of used stamps were recovered. On the commencement of the police investigation the plaintiff was suspended with effect from 15th July, 1953. The police ultimately did not submit a charge-sheet, but, a departmental enquiry was taken up. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, on 6th January, 1955, served a charge-sheet on the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted his explanation on 27th June, 1955. He declined to participate in any oral enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after examining the materials, passed an order on 12th July, 1955, holding the plaintiff guilty of all charges but one. He proposed that the plaintiff be dismissed. On 18th August, 1955, the plaintiff submitted his explanation to the proposed punishment but the authorities considered the explanation unsatisfactory and by an order dated 25th August, 1955, dismissed the plaintiff from service. The plaintiff does not appear to have gone up in appeal but came to Court straightway. He challenged the order of suspension as well as of dismissal. Both the Courts below have upheld the order of suspension. They have found that the plaintiff was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of explanation within meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution and on that ground have declared the order of dismissal to be null and void. In the pleadings the plaintiff had alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not supply him copies of statements of witnesses as well as of documents in spite of repeated requests of the plaintiff. Nonetheless such statements and documents were relied upon for the finding that the charges have been established. That plea has found favour with both the courts below. It appears that at the argument stage the plaintiff raised another plea, namely that the charges were vague and as such the entire proceedings were void. This plea was repelled by the trial court but has been accepted by the appellate court. The findings on both these aspects have been challenged in the present appeal.
(3.) I may first take up the question whether the charges were vague. The charge-sheet framed the following charges against the plaintiff :- 1. Failure to sell stamps to the members of public presenting parcels for booking. 2. Accepting cash in lieu of postage stamps from the members of the public in payment of postage on parcels in contravention of clause 86 of Post and Telegraphs Code. 3. Affixing used up stamps on parcels accepted for booking in lieu of postage received in cash from the members of the public and thereby playing fraud on the Government. 4. Applying heavy black ink to deface high value stamps on the parcels with rubber stamps to evade detection of fraud. 5. Conspiring with other officials to play fraud on the Government. 6. Visiting Delhi without permission to leave station and entering into correspondence with the philatelist for supply of previously used up stamps with a view to reuse them on parcels under assumed names to evade his identity being established. 7. Keeping stock of used up stamps hidden in the spectacles case and in the office table pad as detected during the police search for reuse on parcels. Charge no. 6 was dropped by the Inquiry Officer. Of the other six, charges nos. 3, 4 and 7 have not been found to be vague, but charges nos. 1 and 2 were found to be top vague. About the fifth charge the finding is that it is not as exhaustive as it should have been. The appellate court has remarked that the charge-sheet should have stated the names of the particular persons to whom the plaintiff-respondent failed to sell the stamps or from whom he accepted cash in lieu of postage stamps. In paragraph 4 of the charge-sheet it has been stated that the Special Police Establishment despatched several parcels from Lesari Gate Post Office foot-constables Ghuni Lal and Lachman Singh of C. I. D., I. B., Meerut, in order to detect the fraud. The plaintiff Hari Om accepted those parcels for despatch. He received the amount of postage in cash from the foot-constable for every parcel on each occasion but instead of asking the sender to affix the stamps he himself affixed the stamps. The charge-sheet further mentioned that on a search of the Lesari Gate Post Office a large number of used stamps were recovered from the possession of the plaintiff. It has further been stated that during the police enquiry the plaintiff had made a clean breast of the affairs, that is to say he had confessed his guilt. The charge-sheet mentioned that Kunwar Singh, peon, admitted that used stamps were purchased from Guru Dutt at Delhi and those stamps were affixed on the parcels by the plaintiff. It is thus clear that the relevant and necessary details upon which these charges were framed were specifically stated in the charge-sheet. The appellate court has misread the document. The finding that the charges are vague hence cannot be accepted. ;