A D BALI Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 228 of the Constitution arises under the following circumstances:--The petitioner Shri A. D. Bali, Officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, is being proceeded against departmentally, by the respondent, on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 27-6-1958 (Annexure 'A'). Along with the original charge-sheet, a statement of allegations has been appended, although the same has not been enclosed with this petition, but it was shown to me during the course of arguments. These allegations are to the effect that when the petitioner was transferred from Chini to Kasumpti, about three years ago, ho drew certain amounts, to which he was not entitled under the Rules, by way of travelling allowance by making false representations. The petitioner's main contention is that the charge-sheet discloses an offence described in Section 5(1) (d). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Since the same is triable exclusively by a Special Judge, as contemplated by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, it is contended that the so-called departmental proceedings are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

(2.) I admitted this petition on 14-8-1958 and issued notice to the respondent, staying further proceedings against the petitioner by the respondent, meanwhile.

(3.) The respondent filed a written statement on the 3rd instant, supported by an affidavit, to the following effect:--It is admitted therein that under the orders of the Lieutenant-Governor, Himachal Pradesh, a charge-sheet, as set forth in Annexure 'A' has been served upon the petitioner. Now, we come to the material point in the case. The respondent has made it clear that the petitioner is being proceeded against departmentally under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred as "the Rules"). The respondent has asserted that the petitioner is not being tried of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the wording of the charge-sheet in the proposed departmental inquiry has followed the language of Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act only to show clearly what the allegations against the petitioner are. It was contended that since the petitioner is not being prosecuted of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no question of taking the case to the Court of the Special Judge arises.