BASANT KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1961 the petitioner was employed as an Upper Division Clerk (Cashier) in the Directorate of Inspection (Research, Statistics and Publication), Government of Indian New Delhi. In July 1961 the office of the Statistician disposed of waste paper by inviting tenders. It was sold to two tenderers, Nand Lal and Ram Dev, and the purchasers removed the same from the premises of the Statistician's office after weighment on 22nd July, 1961, 27the July,1961, and 28th July, 1961. It is alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the petition that on 27th July, 1961, the duty of supervising the weighment was assigned to J. N. Talwar and Ajit Singh, two of the clerks in the Statistician's office, and a statement of sale in the prescribed form was duly prepared according to the instructions. In paragraph 7 the petitioner says that J. N. Talwar had to go away for a short while in the course of weighment and requested the petitioner to be present at the site of weighment during his absence. It is also claimed by the petitioner that it was no part of his duty to supervise the weighment and no such duty was assigned to him by any authority by any order written or verbal and he only agreed to be present at the site of weighment in order to oblige colleague for a short while during the latter's absence. In the counter-affidavit, paragraph 6 has not been denied. Paragraph 7 of the petition has not been admitted and it is stated there in that:-

(2.) From the reading of paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the petition and the replies therto in the counter-affidavit it appears that the duty of supervising the weighment was assigned to J. N. Talwar and Ajit Singh. That is so because paragraph 6 of the petition has not been denied in the counter-affidavit and while not admitting paragraph 7 the deponent speaks therein about the usual practice but does not say that the duty to supervise weighments was assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that one Bal Krishan, a clerk in the Statistician's office, demanded on 27th July, 1961, a sum of Rs. 50.00 from the purchaser threatening that unless the payment was made he would report to the authorities that there had been an under-weighment of the waste paper but the purchaser declined to meet the demand; that on 28th July, 1961, the matter was referred to Shri Pillai, the Statistician; that fearing the consequences Bal Krishan filed a complaint on 29th July, 1961, in which he involved the petitioner as well as J. N. Talwar and Ajit Singh; that a fact finding inquiry into the said complaint was conducted by Shri K. D. Bannerjee, the then Deputy Director of Inspection (an officer superior in rank and status to the Statistician), that during the course of the inquiry the statements of witnesses were recorded; that the petitioner was informed of the proposal to take action against him and of the supporting allegations that he was afforded an opportunity of defence and that eventually the petitioner was administered a warning n writing asking him to be more careful and diligent in furture in the discharge of his duties.

(3.) The position taken up by the respondents in their counteraffidavit, on the other hand is that on 28th July, 1961, the pur- chasers of the waste paper reported verbally to the Statistician that on 27th July, 1961, a thinly built gentleman turned up at the public 'Dharam Kanta' where the trucks loaded with the paper were being weighed and threatened that unless he was paid Rs. 60.00 as illegal gratification he would report about the under-weighment of the paper sold to them; that the late Shri S. P. Jain, after getting a factual report on the matter, decided to file the complaint but later on the then Director of Inspection ordered that the case should be handed over to the Special Police Establishment for investigation, that after receiving the report of the S.P.E. a warning was issued to the petitioner by the then Deputy Director of Inspection; that Shri Bannerjee was not the authority empowered to make appointments and, consequently, incompetent to administer the warning and, therefore, it was decided that a departmental inquiry should be held; that Shri K. D. Bannerjee conducted a preliminary inquiry with a view to framing charges against the petitioner and two others; and that it then came to light that the petitioner had been working in a private firm for about 5 to 6 years. As a result of all this a regular inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on 27th July, 1962, the Disciplinary Authority served two charges on his alleging violation of rules 3 and 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The said two charges read-