HARSARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service of the Government of India in Jan. 1941 in C.P.W.D. as an Overseer. He was confirmed as a Government servant in Aug. 1942 and promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1946. He worked in that capacity from 1950 to 1954. In 1952 a project for widening a part of Delhi Gurgaon Road (National Highway No. 8) between mile 6/2 and 13/5 was initiated by the Ministry of Transport, Government of India. After some necessary modifications, approval and financial sanction to the project, estimated at Rs. 3,53,400 plus agency charges, was accorded by the Ministry sometime in Dec. 1952 and the approved estimate was thereafter forwarded to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, as well as to the Additional Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D., for technical approval and financial sanction. Item No. 11 of the schedule, called schedule of quantities attached to the estimate for the said work read as under:

(2.) Since most of the facts have been set out in C.P. Govil Vs. Union of India, (1965) 1 Delhi LT 16 . I propose to be brief in the narration thereof in this judgment. A draft notice in duplicate inviting tenders was submitted for the approval of the Superintending Engineer and return to Shri C.P. Govil, who was at the relevant time posted as the Executive Engineer. The said draft notice was checked in the office of the Superintending Engineer by the Senior Drafts man and the Assistant quantity Survevor and some corrections in pencil were made in the draft. It has been found by the Inquiry Officer that the draft of the N.I.T. bears initials in the bottom left hand corner dated Dec. 20, 1952, which proves the checking mentioned above. It has also been found by the Inquiry Officer that both the copies of the notice inviting tenders bear the signature of Krishnamurthy, who was personal Assistant to the Superintending Engineer. On 23rd Dec., 1952, the Superintending Engineer forwarded the estimate to the Superintending Engineer Planning Circle and asked him to obtain the technical sanction of the Chief Engineer. He added that since the work was of urgent nature he was authorising the Executive Engineer (Shri C.P. Govil) to issue the press notice the same day in anticipation of the Chief Engineer's technical sanction. On Dec. 22, 1952, Shri C.P. Govil issued letters to certain newspapers forwarding the draft press notice and asking for its insertion on Dec. 25, 1952, and Dec. 27, 1952. In the press notice it was inter alia stated that the tenders will be opened on 15th Jan., 1953. The said draft of notice inviting tenders consisted of a set of documents comprising 35 pages. The first page is the draft press notice signed by Shri C.P. Govil. Then follows the printed form P.W.D. 6 (notice inviting tenders) with relevant long hand entries relating to the work. After this there is the printed form P.W.D. 8 (pamphlet) which contains the general directions and conditions of contract for works on item rate tender. Inserted between the printed pages Nos. 2 and 3 of this form is the Schedule of quantities which contains item 11, the subject-matter of controversy. Another document comprised in the set is the form showing approximate materials to be supplied by the Public Works Department. On receiving the draft of the notice inviting tenders and its duplicate from the office of the Superintending Engineer along with the file, Shri C.P. Govil's office took the following action. Copies of form P.W.D. 6, which was page 2 of the draft notice inviting tenders, were prepared and sent to the office of the Superintending Engineer and other local officers for being pasted on Notice Boards. These copies were dispatched under dispatch No. 12928/2912. Fifty cyclostyled copies were prepared for insertion in P.W.D. 8 and for subsequent use and 12 copies of the cyclostyled Schedule of quantities were incorporated in the tenders sold and 38 copies remained in the office and were made available for subsequent use. The procedure in such matters is that schedule of quantities contains blank columns when tender forms are sold to the contractors and in the said Columns the contractors enter the rates they want to quote for the various items and the monetary amount each item works out in accordance with the rates. After the work is awarded copies of the Schedule have to be supplied to everyone concerned with the approval of the award of the work, with the accounting and auditing of the work, and with the day to day supervision of the execution of the work.

(3.) The charges against the petitioner were exactly the same as against Shri C.P. Govil though the allegations in support of the said charges were different so far as the petitioner is concerned. The heart of the charge against the petitioner is that the discrepancies in the two dates and the undated initials show that the alteration was not genuine and he, therefore, appears to have tampered with the official documents unauthorisedly. It is appropriate to quote the relevant part containing the allegations against the petitioner with respect to the first charge. It reads: