C P GOVIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case leading to the present dispute require a somewhat elaborate statement, particularly in view of the fact that one of the principal contentions urged at the bar and which we are called upon to answer is whether or not the report of the Inquiry officer is based on any evidence.

(2.) The appellant joined service in Government of India in November 1940 and was promoted as Executive Enginer in September, 1947. From May 1, 1950 to July 24, 1953, he was posted as Executive Engineer, Delhi State Division No. 1, a division under the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner. On July 24, 1953, he took leave for 3 months and thereafter joined as Executive Engineer, Simla Central Division from where he was again transferred in 1955 to Vermag in Kashmir. In December 1952 a decision was taken by the Ministry of Transport to widen a portion of Delhi-Gurgaon road (National Highway No. 8) a road leading to the Palam Air-port. Accordingly an estimate was prepared by the Roads Organization of the Ministry of Transport. Item 11 in the Bill of Quantities attached to the said estimate was as under :-

(3.) It may also be pointed out that with respect to the fifth running bill prepared on July 16, 1953, the measurements entitled in the measurement book again show the figure 6 corrected to 5 and the correction bears the initials of the Overseer. The casting abstract prepared with respect to this on July 18, 1953 by the same Overseer and checked by the Assistant Engineer shows a clean 5. The fifth bill is prepared on July 24, 1953 and also bears clean 5 with respect to bitumen content in item II. The bill is also paid for on the same date. On July 22, 1953, the Overseer who initialled the measurement book with respect to the fifth running bill (Mr. Sondhi) was transferred and on July 24, 1953, the appellant went on 31 months leave. On August 3, 1953. the Accountant supplied copies of the agreement to the Assistant Engineer for the first time. On August 5, 1953, a decision was taken as a result of the meeting between the Superintending Engineer and the Ministry that the work relating to item 11 be increased to almost double the quantity. A deviation statement for the additional work was prepared on September 1, 1953, by the appellant's successor Mr. Motwani and in the said deviation statement pounds is mentioned in iten 11 and the said statement was sent to the Superintending Engineer for approval. The sixth running bill is also prepared on the 1st of September, 1953, by completely new set of people and t here again the bitumen content is mentioned as 5 and not 6. The seventh running bill is prepared on October 28,1953, but the measurement book with respect to that again shows 6 pounds of bitumen content and not 5. The tenth final bill was paid in March 1954 and it is in August or September, 1954, that it was pointed out by the office of the A. G. C. R. that there was an error and an over-payment had been made- The Superintending Engineer made enquiries from Mr. Motiwani. The Inquiry Officer points out in paragraph 87 of his report that at page 154 of the file is a manuscript draft in Shri Sudarshan Kumar's handwriting of the reply to be sent to the A. G. C. R. It says there is no over-payment because the original agreement provides 5 pounds and not 6 and bitumen was issued accordingly. The draft is initialled by Shri Sudarshan Kumar and by the Accountant (Shri H.. K. L. Talwar, a witness in the enquiry ) and after approval by Shri Motwani on 20th August, 1964 is issued on 23rd August, 1954, with a copy to the Superintending Engineer. On January 10, 1955, the Superintending Engineer wrote to the appellant, who was posted at Simla, to explain the circumstances in which the change was brought about. Further the appellant's case is that he came to Delhi on tour on January 19, 1955, and met Mr. Nanda in the presence of Vaikuntam, who was Accountant in the Executive Engineer's office from 1951 to 1952, and that Vaikuntam had confirmed before Mr. Nanda that the appellant had obtained telephonic approval for making the change. It is not really for us to go into the merits of the controversy in as much as the scope of this appeal is limited as discussed hereinafter. On 22nd January, 1955, is the letter Exhibit "A" written by the appellant to Mr. Nanda, the Superintending Engineer, from Simla and as we have mentioned already the appellant made a categorical assertion in the said letter that he had of tained his sanction on telephone for making the change. On 24th of January, 1955, the A. G, C. R. asked for a thorough investigation into on matter and it was during this investigation that the Ministry and the time Engineer decided to obtain certain information from different soundly They obtained from Dharampal Singh, one of the unsuccessful tenderly his register containing his calculations for the tender with respect to work. This is one of those documents which were rejected as inadmissible in evidence and with respect to which the appellant has made a serious grievance for he contends that this register shows that the calculation as made by the unsuccessful tenderer on the basis of 5 pounds of bituman and not 6 which according to the appellant further shows that the correction was made in the tender documents before they were sold. The Inquiry Officer has said in this connection that-