UNION OF INDIA Vs. H C GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is whether Government is competent to differ from the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer who has been entrusted with the work of holding a departmental enquiry against a delinquent government servant under Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard to his misconduct is not supported by any evidence at all. As our judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both the questions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of India, succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Attorney-General told us that the appellant was fighting this appeal as a test case not so much to sustain the order of dismissal passed against the respondent as to obtain a decision from this Court on the two points of law raised, by it in the present appeal.

(2.) The above two points arise in this way. The respondent, H. C. Goel, joined the Central Public Works Department on November 26, 1941, and in due course, he was selected for appointment in Class I post in or about 1945-46. In January, 1956; he was posted as Surveyor of Works at Calcutta. It appears that he felt that his seniority had not been properly fixed, and so, he had made a representation in that behalf to the Union Public Service Commission. He happened to go to Delhi about the middle of January, 1956. Then, he called on Mr. R. Rajagopalan, who was the Deputy Director of Administration, at his residence on January 19, 1956. His idea in seeing Mr. Rajagopalan was to acquaint him with the merits of his case. In the course of his conversation with Mr. Rajagopalan it is alleged that he apologised for not having brought 'resagullas' for the children of Mr. Rahagopalan. Thereupon, Mr. Rajagopalan frowned and expressed his displeasure at the implied suggestion. A little later, during the course of the interview, it is alleged that the respondent took out from his pocket a wallet and from it produced what appeared to Mr. Rajagopalan to be a folded hundred rupee note. Mr. Rajagopalan showed his stern disapproval of this conduct, whereupon the respondent said 'No' and put the wallet with the note in his pocket. After a few minutes the interview ended and the respondent left Mr. Rajagopalan's place.

(3.) Soon thereafter Mr. Rajagopalan reported the incident to Mr. Ananthakrishnan, Director of Administration, C. P. W. D., and at this suggestion he submitted a complaint in writing. In this complaint, Mr. Rajagopalan narrated the incidents as they had occurred and added that at the end of the interview, the respondent asked him whether he could meet Mr. Rajagopalan again the next day to know about the result of his representation, and Mr. Rajagopalan told him that he might make the enquiry when he happened to visit Delhi next.