SATISH CHANDRA MAIRH Vs. EXPORT INSPECTION COUNSIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging legality of order dated August 11, 1989 passed by Director (Inspection and Quality Control) and Ex-Officio, Member Secretary, Export Inspection Council, removing the petitioner from service in exercise of powers conferred under rule 9 (2) of the Export Inspection Agency Employee (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978 : The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed by the Special Secretary and Chairman, Export Inspection Council which is an Appellate Authority by order dated December 27, 1989. We are more than satisfied that the order of removal is extremely perverse and the facts to be set out hereinafter would demonstrate that the respondents were out to throw out the petitioner from service by any means.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Technical Officer by Export Inspection Council, a body created by Central Government with effect from August 2, 1976. In year 1980, the petitioner was charged with negligence in performing duties and in passing certain substandard goods. The charge-sheet served on September 29, 1980 led to an enquiry and suspension and the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were not proved. Ultimately, the enquiry was dropped on November 27, 1984. On July 8, 1985 the petitioner was again put under suspension. The Petitioner was served with memorandum dated November 4, 1987 to explain why action should not be taken under Rule 11. The statement of article of charge served upon the petitioner recites that the petitioner was found on July 25, 1986 in possession of assets to the extent of Rs. 67,255/- disproportionate to his known source of income and thereby the petitioner exhibited lack of integrity and contravened provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The statement of imputation of misconduct supplied to the petitioner sets out that the petitioner during the period of service from August 2, 1976 to July 1986 had earned total income of Rs. 2,71,350/ -. This income included that interest on fixed deposit receipts, recurring deposit and the income earned by the petitioner's wife from stitching of the clothes. The statement then recites that the expenses on household and L. I. C. premium amounted to Rs. 1,07,270/ -. The break-up of the expenses is Rs. 15,800/- towards L. I. C. premium and Rs. 91,470/- towards household expenses. The household expenses are estimated on the basis that the petitioner must have spent 60% of the income. The statement then recites that the likely saving of the petitioner should have been Rs. 1,64,080/- but the petitioner was found to be in possession of the assets to the tune of Rs. 2,31,335/ -. The petitioner filed his reply denying the charge and pointing out that the assumption of the respondents that 60% of the income was spent on the household expenses is without any foundation. The petitioner further pointed out that the respondents are bent upon removing him from service and therefore one after other enquiry is held against the petitioner. The reply filed by the petitioner did not satisfy the respondents and the Disciplinary Authority appointed Swaraj Banerjee as the Inquiring Authority.

(3.) BEFORE the Inquiry Officer, it was claimed by the respondents that the petitioner's wife had purchased a flat in November 1983 and the petitioner had shifted to that flat in May 1984 alongwith his family members. The respondents claimed that the intimation of the purchase of the flat was given on May 21, 1984 and the petitioner had not explained the sources from which the flat was purchased. The petitioner pointed out that the flat was purchased from the income of his wife and the amount possessed by her. The petitioner also pointed that the relations of his wife had gifted her small amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and the amount of Rs. 40,000/was received by his wife from her mother Smt. Kalavatidevi. The total consideration for the purchase of the flat is not very large. In support of the claim that the petitioner's wife had received small amounts as gift from her relations, several relations of the petitioner were examined and the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the witnesses had requisite capacity to pay the amounts to the wife of the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer also noticed that the consideration paid for the flat was not very large. The Inquiry Officer held that though the petitioner had led evidence about the consideration being paid by his wife, it is possible that the evidence led by the petitioner may not be true. The Inquiry Officer also held that the amount of investment was not declared by the delinquent as established that the declaration was made long prior to the date of suspension. Indeed the declaration was made by the delinquent on May 21, 1984 i. e. long prior to the submission of statement of imputation. As mentioned hereinabove, there is no reference whatsoever to the acquisition of the flat in the statement of imputation. The Inquiry Officer, by report dated April 12, 1989 came to the conclusion that the charge against the delinquent was proved and the assets of the delinquent were disproportionate to the known source of income to the extent of Rs. 26,768/- and not to the extent of Rs. 67,255/- as set out in the charge-sheet. The report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment of removal from service was imposed. The appeal preferred by the delinquent before the Appellate Authority ended in dismissal without the Appellate Authority recording detailed reasons. The order of removal is under challenge in this petition.