H C SARIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen out of the following circumstances. H.C.Sarin petitioner, anemployee of the Indian Railways, was posted at London.as Senior Railway Inspector and attached to the India Store Department with effect from 6th August, 1954. His main function was inspection of the rolling stock and other materials purchased by the Indian Railways from various firms in the United Kingdom. He was transferred to the Essen Area of West Germany in the same capacity where he succeeded S. N. Hussain. This happened towards the end of 1956. He stayed there till April, 1958. On 3rd January, 1958, the inspection work which was conducted by him was transferred by the Indian Railways to the German Federal Railways.

(2.) Messrs Leo Gottwald and Company, Dusseldorf, entered into a contract with the Government of India for supply of breakdown cranes required by the Indian Railways. This firm was a family concern of one Dr. Hans Dieter Gottwald, a lawyer by profession. It so happened that the firm was not able to supply the cranes contracted for as undertaken and thereby according to the terms of the contract was liable to pay 45, 138-7-8d, as liquidated damages for delayed supply to the Government of India. Dr. Gottwald reported on 8th September, 1958, to Messrs L.T. Madnani, Railway Advisor, J.D. Shukla, Director General, India Store Department, and S. K. Anand, First Secretary Establishment, that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification from him and on Opel Car from another firm for passing the goods supplied by them to the Central ' Government. A summary of his complaint was prepared by the aforesaid three officers on 9th September and signed on 12th September -1958 Mr. N. S. Pandey, Financial Advisor to the High Commission for India in London, went to the Germany and after some preliminary enquiry reported that the above complaint was correct and there was a prima fade case against the petitioner.

(3.) The Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, on 7th April, 1959, served memorandum No. AV-27(3)/58(i) dated 3rd April, 1959, on the petitioner intimating that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him. under rule 1730 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume 1. The charges on which the enquiry was to be held are as follows :- Charge I. That Shri H. C. Sarin while functioning as the Senior Railway Inspecting Officer in the India Store Department at London during the period between December 1956 and May 1956 and May 1958 demanded and obtained illegal gratification from the firm of Messrs Leo Gottwald of Dusseldorf. Charge II. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as oforesaid the said Shri H. C. Sarin voilated rule 16 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1956 in that he accepted an Opel Car from Messrs Talbots of Aachen as a gift. Charge III. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforeasaid the said Shri H. C. Sarin used his official influence for personal advancement." The petitioner was asked whether he desired to be heard in person and was also told that he may during the enquiry be accompanied by another officer of the Indian Railways or of the Government of India stationed in the United Kingdom to act as defence counsel provided that the services of the officer so intimated could be made available and that the officer was not a professional lawyer and one competent to practice in a Court of law. He was also asked that if for the purpose of preparing his defence he wanted to inspect and take extracts from any official records, he should furnish a list of such records to the Chairman of the Board of Enquiry (hereinafter referred to as the Board) not later than 15th April, 1959. He was enjoined to submit to the Chairman of the Board statement of his defence not later than 30th April, 1959, and alongwith it to furnish the names and addresses of the witnesses and a list of documents, if any, which he wished to produce in support of his defence. He was at the same time placed under suspension and was further directed not to leave London without first obtaining permission of the competent authority and to immediately notify him in the event of his changing his residential address in London. The Board as appointed by the Government of India comprised of Mr. M. A. Hussain, Col : Hendricks, and Mr. T. M. Duraiswamy, Mr. N. S. Pandey Financial Advisor, High Commission for India in London, who has conducted the preliminary enquiry in the matter against the petitioner, was to present the case in support of the charges before the Board.