UNION OF INDIA Vs. B DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was holding the post of Assistant Director Grade I in the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals with effect from 27-12-1967. He was sent on deputation to the Ministry of External Affairs as Director (Shipping) and was posted at the High Commission of India in London from 18-7-1975 for a period of three years. The period of his deputation expired on 18-7-1978. Thereupon he was informed on 24-10-1978 by the Counsellor (Political and Admn.) High Commission of India, London to make preparation for his departure to New Delhi where he was being transferred with immediate effect. The respondent made representations against his transfer. However, his representations were rejected and he was informed that the Ministry of External Affairs had decided that he should relinquish charge of his office on 15-12-1978. The respondent gave various excuses for not handing over charge. He said that he was suffering from a slip-disc. Then he said that his wife was not well. Ultimately, he also asked for leave. On 27-12-1978, the respondent was informed that he will be deemed to have relinquished charge on the evening of 7-12-1978. The respondent, however, purported to go on medical leave. He reported for duty at the High Commission of India in London on 7-2-1979 but he was not allowed to join. Thereafter the respondent applied for grant of ex-India leave for two months with effect from 9-2-1979.

(2.) By order dated 14-2-1979 the applicant was relieved of his duties as Director (Shipping) in the High Commission with effect from 7-12-1978 and the period of his leave was regularised. He was also informed that his request for ex-India leave for two months had been rejected. The respondent, however, did not return to Delhi nor did he join duty.

(3.) Under a memorandum dated 9th of June, 1981 the President proposed to hold an inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. A statement of imputations of misconduct was annexed to the memorandum and the respondent was directed to submit a written statement of his defence and state whether he desired to be heard in person. The articles of charges were to the following effect:-