R SRINIVASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant while working as Income-tax Officer (Estate Duty) at Madurai, stayed in Sri Ranga Lodge, an annexe to the New College House; Madurai, from 26th July 1973. He paid the rent till 31st July, 1973. He did not pay the rent from 1st August, 1973 to 3rd September, 1976, the entire period of his stay in Sri Ranga Lodge on 10th November, 1976, a cheque for Rs. 6,000 was sent towards rent by the appellant's brother. On 1st December, 1976 stamped receipt was issued by the Lodge showing payment of rent by the appellant for the entire period of his occupation. On 27th January, 1978, charge was framed against the appellant that he failed to pay rent payable for the period of his occupation in spite of repeated demands from the Management and Hotel staff and has abused his official position and acted in a manner unbecoming of public servant and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant submitted an explanation that as he came to stay permanently in the Lodge, he wanted the Management to fix the monthly rent as the daily tariff rate was not applicable to permanent residents and the Hotel Management neither fixed the monthly rent nor sent any bill and thus the delay in payment was only due to the non-fixing of the monthly rent by the management. The appellant further explained that on account of the delay in fixing the monthly rent, he could not claim the house rent allowance from the Government and was thus put to loss, and as the Estate Duty Officer, he had nothing to do with the Income-tax, Wealth-tax assessment of the owners of the Lodge and he had no kind of official dealings with the Lodge owner and no improper motive could be attributed for delayed payment of rent due to a bonafide reasons. The explanation was not accepted, and the enquiry officer held that the charge against the appellant was proved. The matter was referred to the Union Public Service commission, which concurred with the findings of the enquiry Officer, and recommended that the appellant is not a fit person to be retained in Government service and the penalty of removal from service should be imposed on him. Then the impugned order came to be passed on 13th December, 1979 removing the appellant from service for contravening Rule 3 (1) (iii) of Central civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order. The main ground alleged in the writ petition is that the delay in payment of rent was only due to the failure of the Hotel Management in fixing the monthly rent payable and as there is no evidence to support the findings of the enquiry officer that the rent was not paid in spite of demand by the Hotel Management, and as Rule 16 (4) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 allows a Government servant to have credit facilities with a bona fide trader, the charge of the appellant having violated Rule 3 (1) (iii) cannot, therefore, be legally sustained. The learned single Judge of this Court, even without admitting the writ petition, dismissed it. The learned Judge concurred with the finding of the Union Public Service Commission that the subsequent payment of rs. 6,000 by the appellant's brother was made only after coming to know that the C. B. I. were enquiring into the matter and the Management of the lodge would not have allowed the appellant free lodging facilities but for his official position and thus there was abuse of official position on the part of the appellant. The learned Judge refused to accept the plea of the appellant that he was demanding settlement of accounts and ultimately the account came to be settled and the appellant should have stayed in the Lodge for three years without payment of rent is certainly a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant, and, therefore, the case squarely falls within rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and rule 16 can have no application to the appellant's case. On these findings, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, against which the present writ appeal is filed before this Court.

(2.) AFTER the filing of the writ appeal, the first respondent has filed a counter containing the following averments. The belated payment of Rs. 6,000 made on 26th October, 1976 by the appellant's brother was made only after the mater was taken up for verification and enquiry by the C. B. I. officials. The appellant failed to pay the rent payable for the prolonged occupation by him and his friends, in spite of repeated demands by the Management and hotel Staff, and thereby abused his official position and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant thereby contravening the provision of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant has no right to request this Court to constitute itself into a Court of appeal against the finding of the enquiry officer. It has been independently investigated and approved by the Union Public Service Commission and the request that this Court should go into minute details and reappraise the evidence in the manner required by the appellant cannot be acceded to. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution this Court cannot convert itself into a Court of first appeal. The finding of the enquiry officer is neither perverse nor unwarranted by the evidence on record. The appellant has not maintained the probity and integrity required of him in the discharge of his public duties and has misused his official position for personal advantage and the writ appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the residuary charge under Rule 3 (1) (iii), that the Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant is applicable only when the case does not fall under any other category of charges listed under Rule 3 and when the charge is that the appellant's conduct is one which is unbecoming of a Government servant, the Union Public Service Commission has found him guilty of misusing his official position and guilty of misusing his official position and the learned single Judge of this Court has gone a step further and given a finding of lack of integrity, and the very fact that these findings have traversed far away from the charge framed against the appellant is sufficient to vitiate them. The learned counsel further contended that the crux of the charge against the appellant is that in spite of repeated demands from the Hotel Management and Staff, the appellant did not pay the lodge rent from August, 1973 to September, 1976, and as there is no evidence of the alleged demand, the finding of the enquiry officer is vitiated for want of evidence, and the order of dismissal should, therefor, be quashed.