K. R. DEB versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 07-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

IL R • .OEB 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENfRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG 
Ap(il 7, 1971. 
[S. M. SIKRI C. J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Service Ru/ts-Central Civil Services Classification-Control and Ap-
peal Rules 1957-Ru/e lS contemplates only one inquiry-Inquiry Oflicer 
can be asked to record further evidence-Disciplinary authority can rt•con-
sider evidence itself and cotm to its own conclusion under r. 9. 
The appellant was a sub-Inspector of Central Excise. A depanmental 
inquiry was held against him in respect of a charge of misappropriation of 
Government money. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him. The Collector 
Central Excise, ordered another Inquiry Officer to make a report after 
taking further evidence. 
The second Inquiry Officer at first exonerated 
the appellant but later, after taking some more evidence as directed by the 
Collector, reported that although the charge against the appellant was not 
proved hie conduct may not be above board. Dissatisfied with the raport 
the Collector ordered a fresh inquiry to be held by a third officer. This 
time a verdict of guilty was given and the appellant was dismissed. The 
appellant's writ petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner 
Tripura having failed be appealed to this Court by special leave. The 
question for consideration was whether the multiple inquiries held againsf 
the appellant were in accordance with r. 
15 of the Classification and 
Control Rules. Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: Rule 15 on the face of it really provides for one inquiry but 
it n1ay be poss.ible if in a particular case there has been no proper inquiry 
because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important 
witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not exa-
mined fl>T some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the In-
quiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision 
in 
r. 1 S for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the 
report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Discipli-
nary Authority. The Disciplinary A11thority has enough powers to recon-
sider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under r. 9. [379 HJ 
Tb• rules do not contemplate an action such as taken by the Collector 
in appointing a third Inquiry Officer. It seems that the Collector instead 
of taking responsibility himself was determined to get some officer to report 
against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only against the 
rules but also harassing to the appellant. (380 BJ 
Jn the result it must be held that no proper inquiry has been conduct-
ed in the case and, therefore, there has been a breach of Art. 311 (2) of 
the Constitution. 
(380 E] 
CML APPELLATE 
JURISDICl'ION : Civil Appeal No. 612 of 
1967. 
375 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
G 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
H 
February 16, 1966 of the Judicial Commissioner Court, Tripura 
in Writ Petition No. 12 of 1962. 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
A 
M. R. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant. 
B 
D 
I' 
G 
H 
0. P. Malhotra, Ram Panjwanl and S. P. Nayar, for the res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, C.J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judg-
ment of the Judicial Commissioner for Tripura and Agartala dis-
missing the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by 
the appellant, K. R. Deb. 
The relevant facts are these : The appellant was appointed as 
a Sub Inspector of Central Excise in a temporary vacancy on Sep-
tember 20, 1958 and he reported for duty on October 15, 1958. On 
May 30, 1959 he was alleged to have detained five maunds of onion 
from the house of one Sayed Ahmad at Ramendranagar. It is fur-
ther alleged that one Siddique Ahmad handed over a sum of Rs. 100 
to the appellant, through one Harendra Kumar Dutta, on May 31, 
1959, but the appellant did not mention the realisation of this 
amount in his seizure report. 
The following charge was framed against the appellent by Shri 
R. C. Mehra, Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs, Shillong: 
"That Shri K. R. Deb, Sub-Inspector, was found guilty 
for concealing the fact of realisation of Rs. 100 from Shri 
Siddique Ahmed on 31-5-1959 and not reporting the 
mlitter in the seizure report or in his diary and th.us 
misappropriated Govt. money of Rs. 100." 
The allegations regarding this charge were supplied to the ap-
pellant. 
The ap

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