SHRI RAM MURTI CHOPRA Vs. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, LUDHIANA DIVISION, LUDHIANA, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the order of removal from service of the petitioner has been challenged.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the Post and Telegraph Department, Government of India, in the year 1941. He was pasted as Sub -Postmaster in the Industrial Colony, Ludhiana, in the year 1960. This was a single -handed office with only a Class IV employee to assist the Sub Postmaster. It is said that Shri Surrinder Singh, Inspector of Post Offices, Ludhiana, visited this office on 7th June, 1961, and checked the postage stamps which had been affixed on 19 parcels and which had been booked by the petitioner on that day. He found that stamps of the value of Rs. 88.50 Paisas were short on 19 parcels which had been got booked by a firm called the United Hosiery Factory. He enquired from the petitioner the cause of shortage. The petitioner told him that the postage stamps had been affixed by the sender and that the stamps had also been checked and defaced by him. He, however, made good the deficiency to the extent of the shortage found from his own pocket The Superintendent, Post Offices, then visited the petitioner's office on 8th June, 1961. The petitioner made a statement before the Superintendent, Post Offices, a copy of which is annexure R. 2. The relevant portion of his statement may be usefully reproduced :

(3.) IT is common ground that under the rules of the postal Department the senders have to affix stamps themselves and under no circumstances are the employees of the Postal Department permitted to buy stamps and affix them on behalf of any party. The rules being in these terms it was all the more necessary that a clear charge should have been framed and proper allegations made against the petitioner if it was sought to find him guilty of misappropriation of the money which the senders used to hand over to him for putting postage stamps which was clearly contrary to the rules. I am, therefore, satisfied that with regard to the matter which seems to have affected the mind of Mr. Misra more in ordering removal, namely, misappropriation of Government revenue no charge had been preferred against the petitioner. In Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1962 P&H. 289, S.B. Capoor J. held that when in disciplinary proceedings against an officer of the Government the Inquiry Officer gives findings on matters outside the scope of the charge sheet it is not possible to say how far the punishing authority removing the officer is influenced by these findings as distinct from the findings on the charges actually framed. If the extraneous findings relate to matters much more serious than the findings which are the subject -matter of the charges then it would be only just and reasonable to hold that reasonable opportunity to defend himself guaranteed by the Constitution and by the service Rules was not afforded to such officer. The orders of removal are therefore vitiated and liable to be quashed. With respect I entirely agree and hold that in the present case Mr. Misra did what according to S.B. Capoor J. ought not to have been and could not have been done by him.