A N CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Chopra petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of this removal from service passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 17th May, 1962, on the allegations as follows : - The petitioner at the time of his removal from service was Class I Section Officer in the Ministry of Transport and Communications, a post which he held in substantive capacity since 1954. He was suspended from service by an order dated 7th November, 1956, in connection with an inquiry in a criminal case registered against him and others including his son R. N. Chopra and P. R. Malhotra (Annexure A). He was served with a charge-sheet together with a statement of the allegations on 18th April, 1958 (Annexures C and D). The charge was in the following terms :

(2.) The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in his memorandum dated 22nd May, 1958 (Annexure I') informed the petitioner that the documents mentioned at items (1) to (7) and (11) in paragraph 4 of his representation (Annexure E) could be inspected by him in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Kotah House Hutments, New Delhi, from 23rd May to 29th May, 1958, during office hours. It was specifically mentioned therein that the. police statements of witnesses and report of the pnvestigating officer could not be allowed to be inspected by him. The intieitioner in his letter dated 17th June, 1958 (Annexure G) requested hiterl alia that photostat copies of the alleged forgeries committed by ismand his son relating to the signature of Yog Raj and S. Chander be uppied to him so that he could get those examined by a qualified examner of questioned documents to enable him to substantiate his position. The Union of India respondent No. 1. in spite of his repeated requests refused to supply the above photostat copies and the documents mentioned at serial numbers 9 and 10 in paragraph No. 4 of his letter (Annexure E). Instead he was supplied with a summary of the statements which Prithvi Raj Malhotra, Kundan Lal, a postal clerk, and Kirpa Ram Malhotra witnesses were likely to make at the inquiry stage. The petitioner inspite of the obstacles placed in his way by the Department concerned submitted his written statement on 27th October, 1958.

(3.) Sbri G. C. L. Joneja, Deputy Secretary, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the petitioner as provided under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It was a joint inquiry against the petitioner, M.L. Bedi, an upper division clerk in the Ministry of Commerce, Balbir Handa, a stenographer in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, and Shiv Nath, A. P. M. Accounts, General Post Office, New Delhi. T. R. Acharya, Inspector of Police, conducted the proceedings on behalf of the prosecution before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner sought permission of the appropriate authority to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the interest of justice but his request was turned down (Aunexure N). i. e further requested the Inquiry Officer to allow him to bring an independent expert so that he could adequately cross-examine the Government Handwriting Expert but this innocent request also was refused.