P R NAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on certificate of fitness granted by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution is directed against its judgment and order dated May 6, 1971 dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The appellant joined the Indian Civil Service after being selected pursuant to his success at the competitive examination held in London in 1934. He underwent the necessary period of probation and was thereafter duly admitted to the said Service. He signed the necessary covenant with the then Secretary of State of Indian. He arrived in India on November 25, 1935. It is not disputed before us that according to Fundamental Rule 56 (f) the appellant a member of the Indian Civil Service had to retire after 35years of service counted from the date of his arrival in India subject to proviso that if he had at the end of 35years service held his post for less than five years, he might, with the sanction of the President of India be permitted to retain his post until he had held it for five years. The appellant's date of retirement in the normal course would thus be November 25, 1970 and this is not controverted in this Court.

(3.) The appellant was appointed as Managing Director of the Indian Refineries Ltd., a Public Sector undertaking in October, 1963. He was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of the said undertaking and he continued to hold that office till August,1964 when he was appointed as Chairman of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. In January, 1965 he was appointed as Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and in February, 1969 he was appointed as Secretary in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development. In the meantime in June. 1967 reference was made to Shri S,. N. Rao, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, to inquire into the circumstances necessitating change in the alignment of the pipeline of the Indian Oil Corporation in the coal-field areas of Bihar and East Bengal. The report submitted by Shri S. N. Rao in April, 1970 did not contain any finding adverse to the appellant. It appears that the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings had also examined the Pipeline Division of the Indian Oil Corporation and submitted its report to Parliament on April 30, 1970. As in this report there were some findings adverse to the appellant the Government framed 9 charges against him and referred them for advice of Shri S. Dutt, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, who, for certain personal reasons, declined to give any advice. In the meanwhile the Government had in August, 1970 appointed a one man Commission consisting of Shri J. N. Takru, a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court under the Commissions of Enquiries Act, 1952, for enquiring into several matters arising out of the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings. When Shri S. Dutt declined to give his advice the Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals in October, 1970 referred to the Tarkru Commission for advice, the question whether prima facie charges had been made out against the appellant. The charge-sheet containing nine charges against the appellant were also forwarded to that Commission. On November 7, 1970 the Government of India intimated Shri J. N. Takru that he was further required to suggest if any other charge or charges appeared to him to have been prima facie mad out against the appellant. The Takru Commission examined 14 charges against the appellant and before starting the enquiry required him on November 16, 1970 to submit his written statement in defence. The appellant submitted his explanation in more communications than one. They were dated 7th and 19th December, 1970 and 5th January, 1971. Shri Takru submitted to the Government an interim report on January 13, 1971 in which prima facie case against the appellant in respect of majority of the charges was stated to have been established. It was in these circumstances that it was decided to hold disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and with that end in view an order suspending him was passed on March 23, 1971.