H L MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant against the respondents challenging the validity of an order dated 9th June, 1971 passed by the President directing that a disciplinary inquiry pending against the appellant shall be continued until its finalisation and the appellant shall continue under suspension under sub-rule (5) (b) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, until further orders. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows.

(2.) The territory of Goa, which was under Portuguese domination, was liberated by the Indian Army on 20th December, 1961. The appellant was at that time in the service of the Government of India in the Post and Telegraph Department and working as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices at Jaipur. Since senior and experienced officers were required for reorganising the administration in the liberated territory of Goa, the appellant was transferred and posted as officer on Special Duty, Post and Telegraph Department, Panjim, Goa. The appellant took charge of his new office on 25th December, 1961 and held that office till 11th August, 1962 when he was transferred as Senior Superintendent, R.M.S., 'A' Division Allahabad. Whilst the appellant was functioning as Senior Superintendent, R.M.S., 'A' Division, Allahabad he was suspended from service by an order dated 11th April, 1963 made by the President in exercise of the power conferred under sub-r. (1) of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 on the ground that a case against the appellant in respect of criminal offence was under investigation. On the completion of the investigation by Special Police Establishment, the Government of India sanctioned the prosecution of the appellant and pursuant to the sanction so granted, the appellant was prosecuted in the court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay along with one Raj Bahadur Mathur on four charges. The first and the fourth charges are not material as the appellant was acquitted of those charges by the learned Special Judge and nothing now turns upon them. The third charge is also not material as it was directed only against Raj Bahadur Mathur and the appellant had nothing to do with it. The principal charge was the second charge which alleged that the appellant had, while functioning as Officer on Special Duty, Post and Telegraph Department, Panjim, Goa, by abuse of his official position or by illegal and corrupt means, obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and/or for others, inasmuch as he had sent or caused to be sent from Panjim to Bombay four consignments specifically described in the charge, in trucks and/or railway wagons hired by Post and Telegraph Department for transportation of foreign parcels from Goa to Daman via Margao, Poona and Bombay, without payment of freight charges, customs duty etc., and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Of the four consignments referred in this charge, the first related to eight cases concealed in five postal bags sent on or about 29th June, 1962, the second related to twelve wooden boxes and a steel trunk concealed in eight postal bags sent on or about 26th July, 1962, the third related to nine cases sent on or about 31st July, 1962 concealed in postal bags and the fourth related to some trunks and leather suitcases sent on or about 31st March, 1962. Whilst the criminal case was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay, the Government of India issued a memorandum dated 8th March, 1965 to the appellant intimating that the President proposed to hold an inquiry against the appellant under Rule 1957. The allegations on which the inquiry was proposed to be held were set out in the statement of allegations enclosed with the memorandum and the charges framed on the basis of these allegations were enumerated in the statement of charges accompanying the memorandum. There were four charges set out in the statement of charges. The first, the third and the fourth charges are not material and we need not refer to them in detail. It would be sufficient to state that they were based on wholly different allegations and had nothing to do with the charges on which the appellant was being prosecuted in the criminal case. The second charge, however, stood on a different footing and in order to appreciate one of the contentions that has been raised before us, it would be desirable to set it out in extenso:

(3.) The order dated 9th June, 1971, impugned in this appeal, consisted of three parts. One part set aside the order of dismissal passed against the appellant on 26th October, 1967, the other part directed continuance of the inquiry instituted against the appellant by the Memorandum dated 8th March, 1965, while the third part continued the suspension of the appellant under sub-rule (5) (b) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. So far as the second part of the impugned order is concerned, it was no doubt challenged as outside the authority of the President in the writ petition as also in the arguments before the Delhi High Court, but at the hearing of the appeal before us, it was frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not possible for him to assail its validity. That part of the impugned order must, therefore, be held to be valid. The only question debated before us was - and this raised a rather serious controversy - whether the third part of the impugned order was valid:was it competent to the President, in the circumstances of the case, to continue the suspension of the appellant under sub-rule (5)(b) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 Even if it was not, could this part of the impugned order be sustained under any other provision of R. 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965