H. L. MEHRA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 23-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

138 
H. L. MEHRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
April 23, 1974 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965-
Sub rule S(b) of Rule IO-Whether valid. 
The aooellant was in the servicr; of the Government of Jndia in the P.& T. 
de'?artment and he was posted as an officer on special duty in Goa after its libe-
ration on 20th Decen1ber, 1961. 
The appellant was working in 
that capacity 
from 25th December, 1961 to 1 lth August, 1962 when he was transferred to 
Allahabad. 
A 
B 
While he was in Allahabad. he was suspended from service by an order dated 
C 
11th April, 1963 made by the President under sub-r. (I) of r. 12 of the Central 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) H.ules 1957 on the ground 
that a case against the appellant in respect of criminal offence was under inves-
tigation. 
On the completion of the investigation by the Special Police Establish-
ment the Government of India sanctioned the Prosec11tion of the appellant and 
accordingly, the appellant was prosecuted in the Court of Special Judge, Greater 
Bombay along \Vith another. 'fhc principal charge was that while the appellant 
was on special duty in Goa, he had sent 4 consignments specifically described in 
D 
the charge, in trucks and railway wagons, and concealed in postal bags from Goa 
to Bombay and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 5 (2) read with 
S. (! )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. 
Whilst the criminal case was pending the Government of India issued a Memo-
randum dated 8th March, 1965 to the appellant intimating that the 
President 
proposed to hold an enquiry against the appellant under r. 15 of the Rules. 
The allegations were set out in the statement of allegations enclosed 
with 
the 
n1emorandum and the charges framed on the basis of the allegations were enu-
E 
merated in the statement of charges. These charges were based on wholly diffe-
rent allegations and had nothing tCJ do with the charges on which the appellant 
\Vas being prosecuted in the criminal case. 
The learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty on the second charge so 
far as it related to the first, second and fourth consignments referred to in that 
charge and convicted him. 
On appeal tf!e High Court confirmed the conviction 
of the appellant and maintained the sentence; but a certificate to appeal to the 
Supreme Court was granted by the High Court. 
During the pendency of the 
appeal, the President, passed an order dated 26th October, 1967, dismissing the 
E 
appellant fro1n service with immediate effect under R. 19(1) of the Rules, 1965. 
The appeal against the conviction was, therea·fter, heard by this Court and 
this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction on the ground that no 
custorn duty W«s Jeviable on despatch of goods from Goa to other parts of India 
and therefore, the appellant could not be held guilty of evading payment of cus-
toms duty etc. 
The President, thereafter, passed an order setting aside the dismissal 
order; 
G 
but since an enquiry was pending against the appellant under the Rules, the Presi-
dent ordered continuance of the enquiry and directed continu::\nce of the suspen-
, 
sion until further orders. 
, 
The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court 
challenging the validity of the order. While the writ petition was pending, the 
Government issued another memorandum by which it directed enquiry only in 
relation to charge II of the earlier .memorandun1; but added 3 more charges set 
out in the statement of charges enclosed with the second memorandum. No 
progress, was, however, made because of the writ petition before the High Court. 
The Delhi High Court. dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and hence the 
appeal to this Court. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
, 
G 
H 
H. L. MEMRA v. UNION (Bhagwali, 1.) 
13 9· 
The impugned order dated 9th June, 1971 consisted of 3 parts-the first part 
set aside the dismissal order, the second part directed continuance of the enquiry· 
and the third part continued the suspension of the appellant under sub-rule 5(b}> 
of Rule 10 of the Rules. 1965. 
The only question debated before this Court was whether the third part of the 
impugned order was valid and whether President was competent to continue the, 
suspension of the appellant under sub rule S(b) of Rule 10 of the Rules. 
It 
was agreed that the validity of the order of suspension was 
to be 
judged b

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