A N DSILVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was an employee of the Government of India in the Post and Telegraphs Department and held the post of Divisional Engineer Telegraphs at Agra in 1947. In June, 1948, he was transferred to New Delhi as Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, Developing Branch, Posts & Telegraphs Directorate. On S 18/09/1948, the appellant was suspended from service and a charge-sheet containing the following two charges was delivered to him :

(2.) NOTICE had already been issued to the appellant informing him that the Government of India had subject to the advice of the Union Public Service Commission provisionally come to the conclusion that the appropriate punishment on the charges is dismissal and that he was required to show cause within 15 days of the papers received by him as to why he should not be dismissed from Government service. The appellant submitted his explanation to the notice. By order dated 25/01/1951 the appellant was informed that :

(3.) THE President had before him the Enquiry Officer's report, the record of the case, the explanation submitted by the appellant and the opinion of the Union Public Service Commission. On a consideration of all these materials the President came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of gross negligence and disobedience of orders. It is true that there is no record of the President having come to a conclusion whether in committing irregularities the object of the appellant was to receive illegal gratification for himself or for others within the meaning of the first charge. It is also true that the President has, in recording his conclusion, used the same phraseology as was used by the Public Service Commission in making its recommendation, but on that ground we are unable to hold that the President has accepted the conclusion of the Union Public Service Commission that the irregularities were not proved to have been committed with a view to secure illegal gratification for himself or for others. THE President is by Art. 320 of the Constitution required to consult the Public Service Commission (except in certain cases, which are not material) but the President is not bound by the advice of the Commission. THE President found the appellant guilty of disobedience of orders and also of gross negligence. THE charge against the appellant was disobedience of orders and that is the charge of which the Enquiry Officer held him guilty. THE Union public Service Commission also agreed with this view. It cannot therefore be said that the misdemeanour of which the appellant was charged was different front the misdemeanour for commission of which he had been found guilty. THE misdemeanour charged consisted of commission of irregularities by disobeying orders expressly issued and that is the misdemeanour of which the appellant has been found guilty.