JAGAN NATH GOSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Jagan Nath gosain, Ex-Assistant Sub-Postmaster, Chandigarh, and is directed against the order dated 18-7-1962 passed by the Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Ambala, confirming on appeal the order dated 19-1-1962 of the Director, Postal Services, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on him.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Shri Hira Nand, Sub-Post Master, Chandigarh-1, proceeded on five days' casual leave with effect from 8-5-1961. The petitioner was asked to relieve him. He signed the charge report on 6-5-1961, but failed to verify the cash and stamps balance before taking over the key of the office safe from shri Hira Nand on 7-5-1961 at about 8 P. M. The petitioner did not call Inder Singh, treasurer, who was the joint custodian of cash and stamps, for actual verification of the balances and he did not even see if the safe containing the cash and stamps was actually locked. On 8-5-1961, which was a holiday, the petitioner attended the office from 6-30 A. M. to 11-10 A. M. In the meantime, one telegraphic money order for Rs. 100 was received for payment. The petitioner instead of calling the treasurer and arranging for the money gave Rs. 13, which were received from hallomajra Branch Office on that very day, and permitted Narain Dass Gauba, head Postman, to pay the balance of Rs. 87 out of his own pocket and thus arranged for the payment of the telegraphic money order to the payee. On 9-51961 inder Singh, Treasurer, at about 9-15 A. M. asked for the key of the safe from the petitioner, who handed over the same to him instead of going himself to open the safe. Inder Singh tried to open the safe, but found that the key did not work. He then opened the door of the safe without using either of the two keys, one that was with him and the other which he had obtained from the petitioner. He found that the cash amounting to Rs. 25,810. 88 np. was missing from it and the duplicate set of keys was lying in it. The safe did not, however, show any signs of having been tampered with or forced open. The petitioner was then charge-sheeted on 4-8-1961 for the breach of Rules 45 and 46 contained in Posts and telegraphs Manual Volume IV, Rules 103 and 106 of the Posts and Telegraphs financial Handbook Volume I and for gross carelessness and negligence in the performance of his duties, which resulted in a loss of Rs. 25,810. 88 np. to the department. On 11-8-1961 he asked for the attested copies of the statements of the various officials made during the course of the preliminary enquiry regarding the theft. This request was, however, refused by the Department on 25-8-1961 on the ground that the statements given during the course of departmental enquiries had not been referred to in the statement of allegations supplied to the petitioner. These were, therefore, not relevant to the charges. He was told that in case, however, the statements of any official were subsequently made use of during the course of proceedings, copies would be supplied to him and he would have an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses during the proposed enquiry. on 229-1961 the petitioner sent a written reply to the charge-sheet supplied to him. On 4-10-1961 a regular enquiry was held against him by Shri D. D. Pasarnikar. No witnesses were produced before the Enquiry Officer, who merely put certain questions to the petitioner and his replies thereto were then recorded by him. He submitted his report on 6-10-1961 holding him guilty of all the charges. On 21-101961 the Director of Postal Services, served a show-cause notice on the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same on 7-11-1961. After going through the same, the Director, postal Services, passed the impugned order on 19-1-1962 and the same was confirmed on appeal on 18-7-1962 by the Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, ambala. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 11-9-1962.

(3.) ONLY two contentions had been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted, in the first instance, that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided in Article 311 of the constitution. The copies of the statements of the witnesses, who had been, admittedly, examined in the preliminary enquiry, had not been supplied to him and, consequently, he could not defend himself properly. Reliance in this connection was placed on a Supreme Court ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva, AIR 1961 SC 1623.