S KAPUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting against the action of the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service and praying that he be removed from the control of the Punjab Government and that if any disciplinary action was intended to be taken against him, it be taken outside the Province of Punjab by persons appointed by the Government of India and in an atmosphere "free from prejudice and hostility". The Government of East Punjab on May 18, 1950, appointed Mr. Eric Weston, Chief Justice of East Punjab High Court as Enquiry Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, XXXVII of 1850, to hold an enquiry against the appellant on twelve articles of charges. Notice was issued to the appellant of those charges. On November 5, 1950 at the suggestion of the Enquiry Commissioner, the Government of East Punjab withdrew charge Nos. 11 and 12 and the Enquiry Commissioner proceeded to hold the enquiry on the remaining ten charges. Charges 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10 related to misappropriation of diverse sums of money received by or entrusted to the appellant, for which he failed to account. The third charge related to the attempts made by the appellant to secure a firearm belonging to an engineer and the unauthorised retention of that weapon and the procuration of sanction from the Government of East Punjab regarding its purchase. The fourth charge related to the granting of sanction under the Alienation of Land Act for sale of a plot of land by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist, the appellant being the beneficiary under the transaction of sale, and to the abuse by him of his authority as Deputy Commissioner in getting that land transferred to his name, without awaiting the sanction of the Government. The fifth charge related to the grant to Sardar Raghubir Singh of a Government contract for the supply of 'fire-wood' without inviting tenders or quotations, at rates unreasonably high and to the acceptance of wet and inferior wood which when dried weighed only half the quantity purchased, entailing thereby a loss of Rs. 30,000 to the State. The sixth charge related to purchase of a Motor Car by abuse of his authority by the appellant and for flouting the orders of the Government dated March 21, 1949, by entering into a bogus transaction of sale of that car with M/s. Massand Motors and for deciding an appeal concerning that car in which he was personally interested.

(2.) Charges Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 related to the official conduct of the appellant when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and charges Nos. 5 and 6 related to the period when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Hoshiarpur.

(3.) The Enquiry Commissioner heard the evidence on behalf of the State at Dharamsals between July 31 and August 21, 1950. Enquiry proceedings were then resumed on September 5 at Simla and were continued till October 23 on which date the evidence on behalf of the State was closed. On October 27, the appellant filed a list of defence witnesses. A detailed written statement was filed by the appellant and he gave evidence on oath between November 28 and December 5. The defence witnesses were then examined between December 5 and December 28. It appears that the appellant did not at that stage desire to examine any more witnesses, and the appellant's case was treated as closed on December 28. On and after December 28, 1950, the appellant filed several applications and affidavits for obtaining certain directions from the Enquiry Commissioner and for eliciting information from the State. On January 2, 1951, the Enquiry Commissioner adjourned the proceeding for the winter vacation. The proceedings were resumed on March 12, 1951, and after recording formal evidence of two witnesses, S. Gurbachan Singh, Sub-Inspector and Ch. Mangal Singh, Sub-Inspector about the statements made by certain witnesses for the defence in the court of the investigation which it was submitted were materially different from those made before the Enquiry Commissioner and after hearing arguments, the enquiry was closed. On May 14, 1951, the Enquiry Commissioner prepared his report. He held that the appellant had taken the amount referred to in charge No. 1 from the Government on the basis of a claim of Raja Harmohinder Singh which was made at the appellant's instance, that the appellant had also received the amount which was the subject matter of charge No. 2, that the appellant admitted to have received the amounts which were the subject matter of charges Nos. 7, 9, and 10, that the amount which was the subject matter of charge No. 8 was obtained by the appellant from the Government under a fraudulent claim sanctioned by the appellant with full knowledge of its true nature and that accordingly the appellant had received an aggregate amount of Rs. 16,734-11-6 and that even though he had made certain disbursements to refugees, the appellant had failed to account for the disbursement of the amount received by him or anything approximate to that amount and therefore the charge against the appellant for misappropriation must be held proved although the amount not accounted for could not be precisely ascertained. On charges 3 and 4, the Enquiry Commissioner did not record a finding against the appellant. On charge No. 6, he recorded an adverse finding against the appellant in so far as it related to the conduct of the appellant in deciding an appeal in which he was personally concerned. He held that the conduct of the appellant in giving a contract to Sardar Raghubir Singh which was the subject matter of charge No. 5 was an act of dishonest preference and the appellant knowingly permitted the contractor to cheat the Government when carrying out the contract and thereby considerable loss was occasioned to the Government for which the appellant was responsible.