UNION OF INDIA Vs. PANGALURI SAYEE DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the IV Additional Judge, City C vil Court, Hyderabad, dated 11th August, 1960 made in O.S. No. 68 of 1959 on his file whereby the suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration and for the recovery of his remuneration, etc., has been decreed with costs.

(2.) The respondent P. Sayee Das was an Inspector in the Central Excise. He Was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Central Excise on 7th December, 1943 and was later promoted as Inspector from 5th February, 1957 in the scale of Rs. 100 to 220. At the time he was served with the charges of receiving illegal grat ficaticn he Was drawing emoluments of Rs. 176 per month. On 8th May, 1956 a memorandum of charges Was served on him for having received illegal gratification during 1951-52, while he was working at Madikondur, Sattenapalli in Guntur District. Exhibit A-4 is the statement of allegations on which the charges were framed. The first item was that on I4th November, 1951 he had accepted Rs. 100 on 31st October, 1955 another sum of Rs. 100 and a further sum of Rs. 5-3-0 from one Jasti Ramaiah of Sattenapalli who Was a tobacco licensee in the shape of mamools. He was directed to submit his explanat'on, which he offered on 12th December, 1956 denying all the allegations. Thereupon, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted from 18th July, 1957 to 20th July, 1957 and thereafter he was served with a notice under Exhibit A-25, dated 11th September, 1957 to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The respondent submitted a written explanation, Exhibit A-26, dated 26th September, 1957, but the Collector of Central Excise who is the competent officer did not accept his Explanation and removed him from service from the date of service of the order. The respondent then Went in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue but it was rejected. Thereupon, after giving a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, he filed a suit, O.S. No. 68 of 1959 for declaration that the order terminating his services was illegal and void and also for the recovery of his salary and allowance due from 31st October, 1957, totalling to Rs. 6,487-66 P.

(3.) The main grievance of the respondent is contained in para. 7 of the plaint wherein it has been mentioned that the Collector's reliance on the statements said to have been made by the persons in the absence of the plaintiff and not subjected to any cross-examination is entirely illegal and contrary to law. It was further averred that the enquiry Was not conducted in accordance with the rulesnor in a judicial manner nor according to the principles of natural justice. Even the findings of the Enquiring Officer were canvassed and it was claimed that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the respondent during and before enquiry. The appellant-Government filed a written statement resisting the claim of the respondent. It was contended that the enquiry had been conducted according to the rules and procedure laid down in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and every opportunity was given to the respondent to show cause against charges drawn against him. Thereupon, the trial Court framed as many as five issues out of which issue No. 2 is relevant for our purpose viz., "whether all the proceedings leading thereto against the plaintiff have been in accordance with rules, regulations and principles of natural justice and therefore in order." It then examined the documentary evidence adduced on either side and came to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent were based on no evidence and, therefore, granted a decree in his favour, declaring that the removal of the respondent from service is not legal and therefore the order is void and further granted relief in regard to the recovery of his emoluments. The appeal arises out of this judgment and decree. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Court erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence against the respondent; the procedure for enquiry contemplated in the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules has been strictly followed and the respondent has been given ample opportunity to meet the charges against him. Further, apart from the oral evidence, some documentary evidence was also forthcoming to substantiate the charges and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in coming to the said conclusion.