HEMENDU BIKASH NAG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner, Hemendu Bikash Nag challenges the validity of a disciplinary proceeding held under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the said Discipline and Appeal Rules) and the various notices and orders made therein including the order of penalty of dismissal from service dated April 23, 1969.

(2.) The Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, received a secret information that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by corrupt and illegal means. After certain preliminary enquiries a case for investigation was started against the petitioner in course of which different persons were examined including the petitioner and his father Dr. A. K. Nag, Statements were called for from the petitioner also. The exact result of this investigation is not known, but admittedly the Investigating Officer submitted a report to the Secretary, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Government of India, and as a result the impugned disciplinary proceeding was initiated on a charge-sheet dated August 28, 1966. There were two charges framed against the petitioner. The first one was to the effect: CHARGE No. I That Shri H. B. Nag, alias Hemendu Bikash Nag, while functioning in different capacities in the office of the Iron and Steel Control, Calcutta, during the period from 10.5.1943 to 17.4.1962, failed to maintain absolute integrity and committed gross misconduct as a Government servant inasmuch as he was found to have lived beyond his known sources of income thereby over-spending to an extent of Rs.12,771.47 and in addition being in possession of assets valued at Rs.1,04,553.57, leading to the presumption that he incurred these expenses and acquired assets of the aforesaid value by dubious and/or questionable means and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The second charge was to the effect that the petitioner had paid a life insurance premium exceeding Rs.1,000 without any intimation to the prescribed authority and thereby had contravened Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. This charge would no longer be relevant for us as the petitioner had been absolved of it concurrently by all the authorities.

(3.) The charge-sheet incorporates a statement of allegations. Such statement in support of the first charge sets out, in the first place, the petitioner's total income during the tenure of his service from the petitioner's total income during the tenure of his service from May 10, 1943 to April 17, 1962, at Rs.1,26,700 which sum is worked out as hereunder : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_226_CALLT1_1973Html1.htm</FRM>