KAILASH CHAND GUPTA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Director of Industries, Delhi Administration, in the wing of the Community Project Officer, was promoted as a Senior Clerk with effect from the forenoon of 26th July. 1967 on an ad-hoc basis and was posted in the office of the Controller, Weights and Measures, Chandi Chowk by an order dated 28th July, 1962 (copy of which is annexure R-1 to the return filed by the Delhi Admi- nistration). It was specifically stated in that letter that the said appointment as Senior Clerk would not confer on the petitioner any claim to the regular appointment and seniority.

(2.) During the period he was working as a Senior Clerk certain charges were levelled against the petitioner by means of a memo, dated 23rd May, 1963 (copy of which is annexure A to the writ petition) by the Director of Industries, Delhi. The petitioner submitted on 31-5-1963 an explanation to the memo. After the receipt of the said explanation the petitioner was informed by another memo, dated 4-10-1963 (copy of which is annexure C to the petition) that it was proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957; he was also given a statement of the allegations which referred to nine charges against him.

(3.) Before proceeding further with this aspect, it is necessary to note that by a letter from the Director of Industries, dated 26-7-1963, Shri H. L. Mehandru, Controller of Weights and Measures, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Since under a rule 15(2) (a) of the concerned rules, the Inquiry Officer could be appointed at the time of communication of the charges and thereafter (but probably not before) by means of an order dated 18-11-1963 (a copy of which is annexure R. 3 to the return) the Director of Industries again appointed Shri H. L. Mehandru Controller Weights and Measures to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. According to the affidavit of Shri B. K. Sharma filed on behalf of the Delhi Administration the letter dated 26-7-1963 appointing Shri Mehandru as an Inquiry Officer was not given effect to; Shri Mehandru functioned only in furtherance of the order dated 18-11-1963 appointing him as the Inquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, however, the appointment of Shri Mehandru even as early as 26-7-1963 and much before the charges as they were finaly framed were communicated, was invalid.