- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos.307-D of 1958 and 48-D of 1959.
(2.) The petitioner is the Deputy Director of Supplies, Government of India, New Delhi, having joined service in 1942.By means of a letter dated 16-12-1955 from the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, he was called upon under R.15 (4) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, to submit before 30-12-1955 a full and complete statement of movable and immovable property held or acquired by him or by the members of his family. The statement required, was duly furnished. He was served with a memorandum dated 8-11-1956 purporting to be a charge-sheet. Seven charges were contained in the statement annexed to the memorandum. The petition filed his reply to the charge-sheet on or about 9-3-1957.On 23-11-1957 he wrote to the Secretary. Government of India, stating inter alia that since a long time had elapsed and no proceedings had been taken, he wanted an opportunity to defend the case in person. An order dated 31-12-1957 was served on him in which it was stated that whereas an enquiry under R.55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules corresponding to R.15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 was being held against him and whereas the President considered that an enquiry officer should be appointed to enquire into the charges famed against him, vide memorandum dated 8-11-1956, the President was pleased to appoint Shri S. S. Venkatakrishnan, Director of Supplies and Disposals, as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry on charge VII was kept separate and in a subsequent letter dated 31-12-1957 the petitioner was informed that the aforesaid charge regarding possession of disproportionate assets had been kept separate pending further Enquiry and verification. On 142-1958 the following order was made by the Government of India : "The undersigned is directed to refer to Order No.AV-13(11)/56 dated 31-12-1957, appointing Shri S. S. Venkatakrishnan, Director of Supplies and Disposals, Bombay, as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against Shri. B. C. Majumdar, Deputy Director of Supplies, and to state that the Government of India have decided that the enquiry should not be proceeded with until further orders." On 2-9-1958 an order suspending the petitioner was made in which it was stated that as a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner, he had been placed under suspension in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-r. (1) of R.12 of the Central Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.On 24-9-1958 the first writ petition was instituted in this Court in which the main prayers were than an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued directing respondent No.1 to withdraw or cancel the order dated 14-2-1958 as also the suspension order dated 2-9-1958 and to withdraw the charge-sheet dated 31-1-1957. The aforesaid petition was admitted to a hearing on 1-10-1958.The respondents acknowledged service of notice on 28-11-1958.On 17-12-1958 the petitioners moved a petition for expeditious disposal of the writ petition. That order was served on respondent No.1.On 26-12-1958 another memorandum was served on the petitioner informing him that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under R.15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The allegations on which the enquiry was proposed to be held were set out in the enclosed statement of allegations and the charges framed on the basis of the said allegations were specified in the enclosed statement of charges. He was further informed that he could submit his written statement not later than 25-1-1959 and could state whether he desired to be heard in person etc., and if for the purpose of preparing his defence he wished to inspect or take extracts from any official records, he had to furnish a list not later than a specified date. As soon as this memorandum was served, the second writ petition was filed impugning the order contained in the memorandum dated 26-12-1958.
(3.) The first point that has been raised by Mr. N. C. Chatterji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once an enquiry had been ordered and an enquiry officer appointed regarding the first charge-sheet of 8-11-1956, it was not open to the Government to cancel or withdraw the enquiry on those charges. It is contended that in fact and substance when the order dated 14-21958 was made directing the Enquiry Officer not to proceed, the enquiry was withdrawn or cancelled, particularly when a second charge-sheet was prepared in December, 1958 on which a fresh enquiry was to be made. In the affidavit in reply filed in the first writ petition it is stated in para 2 that while the statement filed by the petitioner in response to the charge-sheet was being considered, the Special Police Establishment approached the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, stating that investigation was being made into allegations of corruption against the petitioner and that if the departmental enquiry was to proceed with it would hamper their investigation and prejudice the case. After due consideration, it was decided that the departmental enquiry be kept in abeyance till such time as the police investigations were over. After the police investigations were concluded, a fresh charge-sheet was issued on 26-12-1958.After the receipt of the petitioner's reply, the enquiry was to be proceeded with further.;