HIMANGSHU KUMAR SEN GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who was appointed as a Poddar in the Cash and Pay Office of the Accounts Department of the East Indian Railway Administration having its office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. It appears there was a shortage of Rs. 10,000.00 on 14.8.57 from different Shroffs and immediately the plaintiff reported the same to the Assistant Chief Cashier. Subsequently a charge sheet was given as against the plaintiff and the charge sheet was revised thrice. We are, however, concerned with the last charge sheet dated 23.12.58, namely, failure to make over to the Assistant Chief Cashier Rs. 10,000.00 out of the total collection of G. C. Notes made by you from the Shroff's working in the Fairlie Plate Cash Office amounting to Rs. 3,62,095.00 on 14.8.57 resulting in loss of Rs. 10,000.00 to the Government." The plaintiff replied in the second show cause notice. Inquiry was held. He was found guilty and thereafter the Deputy Chief Commercial Accountant issued second show cause notice against the plaintiff which is as follows:-

(2.) Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was however rejected by the Appellate Authority. After the second show cause notice was issued the plaintiff replied to the second show cause notice bit he was removed from service with effect from 11.3.60. An appeal was taken against the order of removal which having been dismissed the present suit was filed. In the said suit the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order of suspension passed on 15.8.57 is without jurisdiction as also the purported order of removal and the appellate order thereon and for a further declaration that the plaintiff is still in service. The suit was, however, dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Maitra, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended firstly that the charge sheet was not by a proper authority. It appears ta us that the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer was the appointing authority of the plaintiff and the charge sheet was given by him. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention. Secondly, it has been contended by Mr. Maitra that there were three charge sheets. Therefore, the whole proceedings was wrong. In our opinion, the last charge sheet was the real one others being superseded and the inquiry having proceeded on the basis of that there is no defect in issuing the charge sheet.