- (1.) This Rule is at the instance of the Union of India and the Customs authorities and it is directed against the judgment of A. K. Mookerji J. whereby his Lordship made the Rule Nisi, which was. obtained by the respondent S. M. Moitra. on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution, absolute.
(2.) The respondent was an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. By a Memorandum dated June 3, 1966 of the Collector of Customs two charges were levelled against the respondent. Of these two charges, it is not necessary to state what the charge No. 1 was, for that charge was not proved. Charge No. II was as follows: "That Shri S. M. Moitra while functioning in the different capacities as Lower Division Clerk, Steno-typist and Upper Division Clerk from 18-4-40 to 31-3-65 in the office of the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Calcutta, between 4-6-63 and 30-11-64 contravened Rule 18 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 inasmuch as he acquired by purchase on 4-6-63 3 cottahs 1 chhataks of land at plot No. 136, Khatian No. 463, Mouza Paschim Putian, P.S. Behala, District 24-Parganas from Shri A. B. Ganguly of Jadu Nath Ukil Road, Paschim Putiari in the name of his wife Sm. Tandra Moitra at a total. cost of Rs. 9,245 and subsequently constructed one one-storied building thereon in 1963-64 at a cost of Rs. 13,266 without obtaining any prior permission from his competent departmental authority." The respondent submitted an explanation to the said charge. It was contended by him inter alia in his written defence that there could not be any contraventioa of Rule 18 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules inasmuch as the said Rules framed under the Notification No.4177 dated November 13, 1964 was published in the Gazette of India on December 12, 1964, that is, after the period during which the respondent was alleged to have contravened Rule 18 (2). It was further contended by him that if at all there was any contravention, it was the contravention of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, which were repealed by Rule 25 of 1964 Conduct Rules without any saving clause. It may be stated here that by the Notification dated March 3, 1969 of the Ministry of Home Affairs a second proviso was added to Rule 25 providing that the repeal of the 1955 Conduct Rules shall not affect the previous operation of any of the said rules so repealed and contravention of any of the said rules shall be punishable as if it were a contravention of the 1964 Conduct Rules.
(3.) The Collector of Customs by his order dated October 15, 1971 came to the finding that charge No. 1 was not proved. He, however, held that the respondent was guilty of charge No. 2. He, accordingly, imposed a punishment on the respondent by stopping his increment for two years without cumulative effect. Against the said order of the Collector of Customs, the respondent preferred an appeal, but that appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained the Rule Nisi out of which this appeal arises. It has been held by the learned Judge that as the period mentioned under the second charge is 4-6-63 and 30-11-64 and as the 1964 Conduct Rules came into existence on 12-12-64, the question of obtaining prior permission from the competent departmental authority with respect to the transaction made prior to the 1964 Conduct Rules did not arise at all. Further, the learned Judge observes that the second proviso to Rule 25 of the 1964 Conduct Rules refers to the 1955 Conduct Rules, but as the respondent was charged for the contravention of 1964 Conduct Rules, the second proviso to Rule 25 has no application. Upon the said findings, the learned Judge quashed the impugned orders and made the Rule absolute. Hence this appeal.;