DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH AND ORS versus DR. ANIL KUMAR GHOSH AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 06-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COUNCIL OF 
MEDICAL RESEARCH AND ORS. 
DR. ANIL KUMAR GHOSH AND ANR. 
AUGUST 6, 1998 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
C 
House Rent Allowance (HRA)-Entitlement when annual rental value 
of house owned by employee is more then l 0% of salary-Excess value 
entered which was different from value in Municipal Register and certificates 
to this effect obtained-D1stinct charges, statement of imputation and list of 
documents furnished-Departmental Enquiry-Removal from service ordered 
D by the Disciplinary authority-Writ Petition filed alleging violation of 
principles of natural justice-Single Judge struck down order of removal-
Division Bench upheld the finding and observed even if charges proved it 
would amount to indiscreetenes but not misconduct-On appeal Held, view 
• 
taken Shocking and wrong-In the departmental proceedings principles of 
natural justice not violated-Central Civil Services (classification, control 
E and appeal) Rules, 1965-Rule 14 (3). 
Departmental Enquiry-Conduct-Ample opportunity to peruse 
documents and prepare defence-Permission to examine any witness, but not 
availed-Serial numbers given to exhibits at conclusion of enquiry instead 
of numbers-Held, objections to report of Enquiry Officer untenable-
F Principles of natural justice not violated 
~-
Departmental Enquiry-Proportionality of Punishment-Held, detection 
of falsi/ity of claim, after l 0 years will not help reducing punishment. 
G 
The respondent had wrongly claimed House Rent Allowance (HRA) for 
a period of ten years. The employees were entitled to HRA if they reside in 
their own houses and their annual rental value for municipal purposes was 
more than 10% of their salaries. He entered the said value as less than 
10% for tax purposes, but obtained certificates to the contrary from high 
officials of the municipality. This discrepency was detected and a departmental 
H enquiry was conducted. The memorandum of charges was set out with a 
1034 
[ 
DIRECT. GENE. IND. COUN. OF MED. RES. v. DR. A.K. GHOSH 
1035 
' 
statement of imputation and list of documents. The department did not examine A 
any witness but the respondent was permitted to examine any person as his 
own witness. But he did not. The daily proceedings were recorded and he had 
signed them. He perused every document and made submissions on the basis 
~ 
of the materials on record. The Enquiry officer found the charges to be 
proved and the respondent was req1oved from service. 
B 
The order of removal from Service was challenged in a writ petition 
contending that principles of natural justice had been violated; that necessary 
witnesses were not examined; that after conclusion of enquiry documents 
were marked as exhibits; and that there was bias. Single Judge allowed the 
petition holding that principles of natural justice had been violated. Division 
Bench upheld this order and further held that even if charges were true it C 
would only prove that respondent was indiscreet and there was no misconduct. 
Aggrieved by this the appellant appealed to this Court. 
The respondent contended that principles of natural justice had been 
violated; that Rule 14 (3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, 
control and appeal) Rules were violated; that rental value as regards HRA D 
need not be same as annual value entered in Municipal register: and that the 
1 
punishment awarded is disproportionate. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : I. The View expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court E 
that even if charges were true, there was no misconduct is shocking especially 
when benefits have been obtained from out of public funds on false certificates. 
[1037-D-E] 
2. I. The objections raised in the writ petition found favour with the 
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, but none of those have any p 
substance. There is absolutely no justification in the allegation that principles 
of natural justice have been violated. [1039-D-E] 
2.2. There is no material on record to support the contention that the 
Enquiry Officer was biased. The record shows that he acted impartially and 
without any kind of bias whatever. [ 1040-C-D] 
G 
2.3. The Enquiry Officer appears to have given serial numbers to the 
exhibits taken on file at the conclusion of the enquiry, instead of giving 
numbers. Such procedure is not violative of the principles of natural justice. 
(1040-8-C] 
3. Rule 14 (3) ofC.C.S. (CCA)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.