RANVIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28th October, 1991, we have partly allowed the appeal. The reasons are. now being stated.

(2.) This appeal has been brought against judgment and decree dated February 12, 1985, of a Single Judge by which the suit brought by the plaintiff claiming Rs. 2,00.000.00 as damages with interest @ 18% per annum was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(3.) At the time of the filing of the suit the plaintiff was working as Deputy General Manager (Telephones) at Pune, but while he was working as D.E.T. at Moradabad, during the year 1972-73 he was alleged to have committed certain acts of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. It appears that on January 28, 1975, in pursuance to the FIR lodged with the police the C.B.I, had raised the plaintiff's house and office with a view to locate filo No. DET/LP-72-73 but without success. It appears that copies of certain official correspondence were seized by the C.B.L and later on two separate sets of charge-sheets were served on the plaintiff in September-October 1977 and necessary disciplinary inquiries were held in November 1977 and January 1978 and in the first inquiry the Inquiry Officer vide report dated November 26, 1977, exonerated the plaintiff of the charges levelled against him but he held the plaintiff guilty of negligence in not preparing the waiting list of candidates (Linemen) in a proper manner, vide order dated February 10, 1978, defendant No. 1-Union of India directed that plaintiff may be let off with a recordable warning only to be careful in future. The plaintiff made representation dated April 3, 1978, pleading that the charge for which he had been found negligent was not part of the charge-sheet served on him and be prayed for exoneration without any warning. Vide memo dated June 27, 1978) the Union of India mentioned that although the said lapse on the part of the plaintiff was not specifically mentioned in the statement of imputations but he had been given the due opportunity to defend himself during the course of the inquiry. However, ag the lapse was committed by the plaintiff not intentionally but inadvertently, so the President of lndia was pleased to modify the recordable warning to that of non-recordable warning.