ATINDRA NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. G F GILLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us has lost a fairly good job just for a pair of shoes. He was employed in the Metal and Steel Factory, Ishapore, in the capacity of a Godown-Keeper of the Senior Grade. It has been found against him departmentally that while so employed, he on 28-8-1951, ordered a labourer of the factory to make a pair of leather sandals for his personal use and that he also supplied the labourer with the requisite quantity of material from the Government stores. If the appellant's transgression had stopped at that point, I do not know whether his employers would have taken as serious view of it as they have done, but they have also found that the appellant caused the issue of the material to be shown against a contract which had, in fact, been executed long ago, Upon-the above findings the appellant has been removed from his office, but he complains that his removal has not been in accordance with law.

(2.) It will be convenient now to state the 'facts in somewhat fuller detail. The Metal and Steel Factory at Shapiro is one of the Indian Ordnance Factories under the control of the Ministry of Defence, Gvernment of India. The post-held by the appellant was a civilian post, but attached to the Army and paid for from the Defence Service Estimates. What his duties were is not very clear, but since he was a Godown-Keeper it may be presumed that he was in charge of some Government store or stores. According to the respondents, information had reached the Security Staff of the Factory that, of late, much unauthorised work was being done in the Belting Section and on 28-8-1951, a Supervisor of the Security Department received some definite information about some unauthorised work going on at the time. He paid a surprise visit and found one Sabdar Hossain, a labourer employed in the factory, making a pair of sandals. On being questioned, the labourer replied that he had been ordered by the appellant to make him a pair of sandals. It would seem that a format statement was thereupon taken from Sabdar Hossain and the appellant was also interrogated. Thereafter on 6-9-1951, a charge-sheet was served on the appellant by which he was called upon to answer two charges, one being that he had wrongfully directed Sabdar Hossain to make him a pair of leather sandals during the working hours of the factory and the other being that he had supplied the required leather to Sabdar Hossain showing the leather as issued for the execution of another contract which had been completed long ago. The conduct involved in both the charges was described as "gross misconduct" and the appellant was further charged with having intended to defraud the Government. The charge-sheet was accompanied by certain other papers which were referred to as materials supporting the charges. In fact, they were two extracts from the statements respectively taken from, Sabdar Hossain and the appellant himself. In his statement Sabdar Hossain had stated that the appellant had directed him to make a new pair of sandals of the same kind as an old pair and that as soon as he (Sabdar Hossain) had seen the Supervisor of the Security Department approaching, he had tried to conceal the stealthy manufacture from the Supervisor by throwing the sandal towards a rack. The appellant's statement contained an admission that he had asked Sabdar Hossain to repair one pair of slippers but he added that it was not for his personal use but for use in the Power House and that he could not say whether the two pounds of leather issued by him had been given to Sabdar Hossain for the completion of that job.

(3.) The appellant was allowed a weak's time to submit his written-statement, if he desired to submit any. The written statement was submitted on 11-9-1951, by which the allegations were denied and it was averred that-whatever had been done by the appellant, had been done in the course of an honest discharge of his official duties.