A S SELHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant joined Government service in 1941 and was promoted as Assistant Inspecting Officer (Technical) in 1942. He was posted in the India Store Department at London in 1944. In October 1955, the plaintiff visited Copenhagen in connection with the inspection of stores purchased from M/s Bruel & Kjaer and issued a certificate in pursuance of inspection on 24/10/1955. The defendant. Union of India, on a report framed four charges against the plaintiff;

(2.) The two principal allegations against the plaintiff were that:-

(3.) About a month after the inspection, the firm addressed a letter dated the 29/11/1955 to their agents in India, M/s Eastern Electrical and Engineering Company, Bombay, advising the shipment of the stores and complaining of the demand and payment of D. Kr. 1,000.00 to the plaintiff. The firm in the letter, inter alia, stated "In that connection, we want to advise you that Mr. A. S. Selhi who stayed in Denmark for several days, and made a very profound examination of the equipment, before his signing the required documents, demanded a payment of Dr. Kr. 1,000.00 equal to 50-O-Od for his services. Of course we could only be highly surprised for a demand of that size as we have never incorporated such high costs in our circulations. As Mr. Selhi, however, insisted, we found ourselves forced to pay the amount in order to have the documents duly signed." The firm also enquired whether it was a normal procedure and who was expected to bear such costs. On 9/1/1956, the firm's agent in India complained to the High Commissioner for India and on 20/2/1956, Dr. S. K. Mitra, Deputy Director-General, India Stores Department, London, submitted a report after making confidential ex parte enquiries. A formal charge-sheet was framed by Shri M. R. Sachdev, Secretary to the Government of India, and memorandum dated 31/3/1956, Exhibit D.7, was sent to the Deputy High Commissioner for being addressed to the plaintiff. The said memorandum inter alia required the plaintiff to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The said memorandum further recited that it had been decided to hold a formal departmental enquiry against the plaintiff under rule 55 of the said Rules. The formal charges and the facts on which the said charges were based were annexed to the said memorandum. In clause (3) of the memorandum, the name of the Enquiry Officer was left blank. Since considerable arguments have been addressed to us on the said omission of the named it is appropriate to read the said clause (3) which is as. under:-