UNION OF INDIA Vs. H C SARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India has appealed against the judgment dated 31/08/1964, delivered by Sharma J. o.i the Punjab High Court whereby thelearned Judge allowed the writ petition which had been filed by therespondent impinging 'the order dated 10/09/1982, of his dismissal from service and praying for a declaration that he continued tobe in service and was entitled to the emoluments of his office. The orderculminating in the dismissal of respondent was passed after a Board ofInquiry had found the respondent guilty of some of the charges whichwere levelled against him.

(2.) The respondent was employed in the Indian Railways as SeniorRailway Inspector attached to the office of the Indian Store Departmentat London with effect from 6/08/1954. His duties included theinspection of rolling stock and other materials fur which orders wereplaced by the Government of India on various firms in the UnitedKingdom and the Continent. Towards the end of 195S, the respondentwas posted to the Esson Area of West Germany as Senior Railway Inspector and remained there till April, 1958. He hadsucceeded S. N. Hussain as Senior Railway Inspector in theIndian Railways attached to the Indian Store Department inLondon. The fir'm of Messrs Leo Gottwald and Company, Dusseldorf,entered into a contract to supply railway breakdown cranes to the Government of India. It appears that the said firm which was a familyconcern of Dr. Hons Dieter Gottwald, alleged to be a lawyer by profession, committed defaults in delivering the contract goods within timeand the Gov rment cf India became entitled to claim 45,138-7.8Sd asliquidated damages on account of delayed supplies. Dr. Gottwald madestatements before L. T. Madnani, (Railway Adviser), J. D. Shukia(Director General, Indian Store Department), and S. K. Anand (FirstSecretary Establishment) in London on or about 8/09/1958,alleging that the respondent had accepted illegal gratification fromhim and an open car from another firm for passing the goods suppliedby them to the Government of India. \ summary of this complaintwas prepared by these three officers on 9/09/1958 and signedon 12/09/1958. Thereupon, N.S. Pandey, Financial Adviserto the High Commission for India in London, went to Germany for investigation into these allegations and reported that there was substance inthe complaint. As a result of this report, the Government of India serveda memorandum on the respondent intimating that it was proposed tohold an enquiry against him under Rule 1730 of the Indian RailwayEstablishment Code, Volume 1. Three charges were framed against therespondent and they are as followed :-

(3.) A statement of allegations was annexed to the aforesaid memorandum which, inter alia required the respondent to submit to the Chairman of the Board of Inquiry a written statement of his defence notlater than 30/04/1959. The respondent was also asked, (a) whether he desired to be heard in person ; (b) to furnish the names andaddresses of the witnesses whom he wished to call in support of his defence ; and (e) to furnish a list of documents which he wished to producein support of his defence. The respondent was also asked to intimatewhether he desired to be heard in person and was informed that he may,during the enquiiy, be accompanied by another officer of the Indian Railways stationed in the United Kingdom or by any other officer of theGovernment of India in the United Kingdom to act as the defence counsel, provided that such officer was not a professional lawyer or one cornetent to practice in a Court of Law. It may be mentioned that thisright of having a defence counsel, who was not a professional lawyer orone competent to practice in a Court of Law, was in accordance withnote (3) to Rule 1730 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume- I, and the said note is in the following terms :-