SHRI NAND LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Controller of Imports and Exports as Class I Officer in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay till 3.12.1970, when he was dismissed from service by an order dated 25.11.1970; he was then aged 55 years and had put in 28 years of service. His appeal was rejected by Memorandum dated 26.6.1971. Charges were framed against him after investigation by the Vigilance Department that;

(2.) The President agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service. He was given a notice (dated 16th December,1969) to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The conclusion arrived at was that the petitioner was in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income to the extent of Rs. 22,107.58 on 31.12.1965 and to that extent the first charge was proved. The second charge was partly proved since he had taken a loan of Rs. 3600.00 from his brother in law (Shri Bhardwaj) about which information had not been given by him to the department. He was finally dismissed from service by order dated 25.11.1970.

(3.) Before discussing the contentions of the petitioner it becomes necessary to notice the precise nature of the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He had submitted a very lengthy report, the crucial aspects of which are seen to be the following: The entire period of service of the petitioner from the year 1942 till the end of 1965 has been divided into three periods. While according to the petitioner he has been spending only Rs. 80.00 per month, according to Shri B.R. Puri, Inspector who investigated into the affairs of the petitioner on behalf of the Vigilance Department, the petitioner must have spent at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month for the upkeep of himself and the members of his family. The difference between the two versions at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month for 8 years and four months amounts to about Rs. 2000.00. While according to the petitioner during the period 1951-58 he spent only Rs. 175.00 per month, according to P.W.8 it was Rs. 225.00. The difference between the two versions at Rs. 50.00 per month amounts to Rs. 5000.00 approximately, during the said period. While according to the petitioner the said expenditure during the period 1959 to 1965, was only Rs. 220.00 it was Rs. 300.00 according to P.W.8, the difference amounting to Rs. 6720.00 for the entire period. The total difference for the entire period thus comes to about Rs. 13,720.00.