BINOD CHANDRA MAZUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos.307-D of 1958 and 48-D of 1959.

(2.) The petitioner is the Deputy Director of Supplies, Government of India, New Delhi, having joined service in 1942.By means of a letter dated 16-12-1955 from the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, he was called upon under R.15 (4) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, to submit before 30-12-1955 a full and complete statement of movable and immovable property held or acquired by him or by the members of his family. The statement required, was duly furnished. He was served with a memorandum dated 8-11-1956 purporting to be a charge-sheet. Seven charges were contained in the statement annexed to the memorandum. The petition filed his reply to the charge-sheet on or about 9-3-1957.On 23-11-1957 he wrote to the Secretary. Government of India, stating inter alia that since a long time had elapsed and no proceedings had been taken, he wanted an opportunity to defend the case in person. An order dated 31-12-1957 was served on him in which it was stated that whereas an enquiry under R.55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules corresponding to R.15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 was being held against him and whereas the President considered that an enquiry officer should be appointed to enquire into the charges famed against him, vide memorandum dated 8-11-1956, the President was pleased to appoint Shri S. S. Venkatakrishnan, Director of Supplies and Disposals, as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry on charge VII was kept separate and in a subsequent letter dated 31-12-1957 the petitioner was informed that the aforesaid charge regarding possession of disproportionate assets had been kept separate pending further Enquiry and verification. On 142-1958 the following order was made by the Government of India :

(3.) The first point that has been raised by Mr. N. C. Chatterji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once an enquiry had been ordered and an enquiry officer appointed regarding the first charge-sheet of 8-11-1956, it was not open to the Government to cancel or withdraw the enquiry on those charges. It is contended that in fact and substance when the order dated 14-21958 was made directing the Enquiry Officer not to proceed, the enquiry was withdrawn or cancelled, particularly when a second charge-sheet was prepared in December, 1958 on which a fresh enquiry was to be made. In the affidavit in reply filed in the first writ petition it is stated in para 2 that while the statement filed by the petitioner in response to the charge-sheet was being considered, the Special Police Establishment approached the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, stating that investigation was being made into allegations of corruption against the petitioner and that if the departmental enquiry was to proceed with it would hamper their investigation and prejudice the case. After due consideration, it was decided that the departmental enquiry be kept in abeyance till such time as the police investigations were over. After the police investigations were concluded, a fresh charge-sheet was issued on 26-12-1958.After the receipt of the petitioner's reply, the enquiry was to be proceeded with further.