UNION OF INDIA Vs. TRILOKI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the Union of India and the Commandant, C. O. D., Chheoki, is directed against the decree dated 9th February, 1976 of the court of Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, declaring the plaintiff-respondent's dismissal from service by an order dated 19 th December, 1967 to be void and that the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been continuing in service without any break.

(2.) The decree was passed on appeal from the decree dated 28th February 1974 of the Court of the Ist Additional Munsif, Allahabad dismissing the plaintiff's suit No. 729 of 1970.

(3.) The plaintiff was a Book Binder, or a civilian employee of the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki. He was suspended from service on 29th October,' 1963 by the Commandant, who is appellant No. 2. An enquiry was instituted against the plaintiff on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 3/8th October, 1964 under Rule 15 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The charge was that the plaintiff, whilst employed as a Book Binder in C. O. D., Chheoki during the period June '63 to October, '63 abetted Sepoy Drivers P. K. Laxman and Ram Pd. in connivance with Storeman Pyare Lal in the commission of theft from C. 0. D., Chheoki and dishonestly received the stolen Government property from the said Sepoy Drivers and disposed of the same in the market and made wrongful gains. The allegations of fact on which the said charge was based are to be found in three statements of : (1) Captain Harbhajan Singh made on 23rd October, 1963: (2) Sepoy Driver P. K. Laxman made on 11th October, 1963; and (3) Sepoy Driver Ram Prasad made on 11th October, 1963. These statements were made in the enquiry proceedings against the said Sepoy Drivers. The plaintiff had appeared as a witness in the said inquiry proceedings; and in reply to the memorandum of charge, he stated his defence vide letter dated 9th December, 1964. He stated that his duty was of a Book Binder and he has no concern with any stores of the department; that the charge against him has been made on the basis of the statement of the two Sepoy Drivers P. K. Laxman and Ram Prasad, who named him in their statements before the court of enquiry as being a party to their dealings with a purchaser of the stolen government stores. He denied the allegation, and submitted that he was in no way connected with the theft or disposal of stores which these sepoy drivers used to take out from C. O. D., Chheoki, and stated that one thing which is proved was that the two Sepoy Drivers declined to cross- examine him before the court of enquiry when he appeared as a witness. According to the plaintiff, if there had been any truth in their statements, they would have at least cross-examined him before the court of enquiry. It was further stated by the plaintiff that the two Sepoy Drivers were directly responsible for the alleged theft as they confessed the same before the court of enquiry and that except for their false statements that the plaintiff was also a party to their dealings, their statements nowhere showed that he had a hand in either the removal of stores from the department or in their disposal to the purchaser. It was added that the purchaser had even denied that he had any concern with the plaintiff in those transactions and Sepoy Driver Ram Prasad had even confessed that he himself handed over the stores to the purchaser and in view of his direct dealing with the purchaser, the plaintiff did not come into the picture at all. In the end, the plaintiff pleaded not guilty and requested that justice may kindly be done to him. By a letter dated 30th January, 1965 Major I. P. Datta was detailed to conduct an oral enquiry into the case along with that against Pyare Lal. 10th February 1965 was fixed for the enquiry. By a letter dated 5th February 1965, the plaintiff was thereafter asked by the Commandant in reply to the plaintiff's statement of defence dated 9th December, 1964 that he was required to report on 10th February 1965 before the oral enquiry scheduled to be held in connection with the case against him. It was added that since the plaintiff had not stated in his defence statement dated 9th December, 1964 that he desired to be heard in person and to interrogate any of the witnesses, no arrangement for detailing such witnesses had been initiated by the Central Ordnance Depot. It appears that the oral enquiry actually commenced onl6th February, 1965 on which date the case of Pyare Lal was taken up and his statement was recorded. The oral enquiry was then taken up again on 19th February, 1965. On that date Pyare Lal was again examined and thereafter Triloki Nath was called, who stated before the Enquiry Officer that unless and until the witnesses asked for by him vide letter dated 19th February, 1965 are made available for his cross-examination he was not in a position to give any evidence before the Enquiry Officer. There was a further enquiry on 24th May, 1965 against Pyare Lal. The enquiry against the plaintiff was also taken up again on 24th May, 1965 by the Enquiry Officer when the plaintiff prayed before him that he should be allowed to give his statement the next day. On 29th May, 1965 the plaintiff appeared before the Enquiry Officer and stated that until the witnesses asked for by him previously were made available for cross- examination he was not prepared to say anything further; and that during these four months, the Depot authorities have not produced any Govt, witness in connection with oral enquiry who has said anything adverse against the plaintiff. According to the Enquiry Officer the plaintiff refused to say anything further and also refused to sign the statement. This is followed by the Enquiry Officer's opinion. According to him both Pyare Lal and Triloki Nath, the plaintiff "seem to be seasoned culprits and have been active participants in the regular and systematic theft of Govt. Stores from Traffic Branch and their subsequent disposal to Harish Chander Sahu, the Kabari.