9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the compulsory retirement order. 2. Validity of the charges against the respondent. 3. Admissibility of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. 4. Application of Rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. 5. Justifiability of the imposed punishment based on the proven charges. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Compulsory Retirement Order: The Union of India appealed against the Delhi High Court's decision, which quashed the compulsory retirement order of the respondent, a Section Officer in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The High Court had upheld the Single Judge's decision to quash the President's order dated April 23, 1963. 2. Validity of the Charges Against the Respondent: The respondent faced three charges: - Failing to inform Shri P. S. Sundaram about a cheque of Rs. 2,500/- issued in his name. - Failing to inform Shri P. S. Sundaram about the cheque bearing his signature and depositing it in his account. - Borrowing Rs. 2,500/- from Shri Nand Kumar without government sanction, contravening Rule 13(5) of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The Inquiring Officer found the first two charges unproven due to the lack of evidence linking P. S. Sundaram, the Deputy Secretary, to the cheque. However, the third charge was proven. The Deputy Secretary, exercising the President's powers, disagreed and found all charges proven, leading to the respondent's compulsory retirement. 3. Admissibility of Evidence in the Disciplinary Proceedings: The appellant argued that the Inquiry Officer wrongly rejected the statements of witnesses from the original trial, which would have proven the first two charges. The Court cited that the Evidence Act does not apply to disciplinary proceedings, but natural justice principles must be observed. The Court held that the statements should not have been admitted without cross-examination, supporting the Inquiry Officer's decision to reject them. 4. Application of Rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955: The third charge involved the respondent borrowing Rs. 2,500/- from Nand Kumar without prior government sanction, violating Rule 13(5). The Single Judge and Division Bench found that there was no evidence that Nand Kumar was likely to have official dealings with the respondent. The Court clarified that the rule's second part forbids borrowing from persons likely to have official dealings. The Court found that the respondent, working in the Steel & Cement Section, should have anticipated future dealings with Nand Kumar, who applied for steel re-rolling mill licenses. Thus, the respondent's borrowing placed him under pecuniary obligation to a person likely to have official dealings. 5. Justifiability of the Imposed Punishment Based on the Proven Charges: The Court noted that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial, and the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability. The High Court should not review the adequacy or reliability of evidence if the inquiry is properly conducted. The Court found that the inference that Nand Kumar was likely to have official dealings with the respondent was reasonable. Although the punishment was based on all three charges, the Court held that the punishment could still be sustained if one substantial charge was proven, as established in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra. Conclusion: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment, holding that the President's order of compulsory retirement was justified based on the proven third charge. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
|
