LexUNION OF INDIA versus H.C. GOEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Hukma v. Stau of Raiasthan. Das Gupta, f. 1963 August 30 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] is by the recovery of the gold from him. All the points raised in the appeal on behalf of the appellant fail, and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. UNION OF INDIA "· H.C. GOEL (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W ANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Civil Service-Disciplinary proceedings-Enquiry-proposal by enquiry officer, if binding on the Government-Order of dismissal based on no evidence-Governrnent acting bona fide--Jurisd£ction of the High Court to inte1"fere-Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 311(1) & (2)-Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. t'. 55. On a complaint the appellant decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondent, suspended him and served a notice calling upon him to show cause \Vhy disciplinary action should not be taken on the follo\ving charges; (i) Meeting the Deputy Director, Administration, C.P.W.D., at his residence without necessary per- r- mission, (ii) Voluntarily expressing regret at his not having brought sweets from Calcutta for the Deputy Director's Children, (iii) Of- fering a currency note which from size and colour appeared to be a hundred rupee note as bribe \Vith the intention of presuading Deputy Director; Shri Rajagopalan to support his representation regarding his seniority to the U.P.S.C., (iv) violation of Rule 3 of the C. C. B. (Conduct Rules). The respondent tendered his explanation and on enquiry, the charges were not found proved. The appellant considered the enquiry report and provisionally ca1ne to the conclusion that the respondent should be dismissed and ac- cordingly issued a second notice against him. The respondent sub- mitted his explanation to this notice. At that stage, his case was referred to the Union Public Service Commission. The Con1mission advised the appellant that none of the penalties could be inflicteU on the respondent. The afV'Cllant considered the matter afresh and 'r< ,,..; remitted it back to the commission to reconsider it again. The Com- mission, on re-exan1ining the matter adhered to its earlier views - ' ' 4 S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719 an<l conveyed them to the appellant. The appellant considered the 1963 \vhole case again and dismissed the respondent fron1 service. The respondent then moved a writ petition in the High Court under Union of India Arts. 226 and 311 for quashing the said order of dismissal. The v. petition was dismissed by the learned single judge. The respon- H. C. Goel. dent then preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was allowed and his dis- missal \Vas set aside. In this Court two questions of law arose for consideration, namely ( 1) whether Government is competent to dif- fer from the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer who has been entrusted with the work of holding a departmental en- quiry against a delinquent Government servant under r. 55 of the Civil Services Rules and (2) whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition filed by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard to his misconduct is not supported by any evidence at all. The appellant mainly contended that if it acted bona fide, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with its conclusions though the High Court may feel that the said conclusions are based on no evidence. Held, that on principle, neither findings recorded by the en- quiry officer, nor his recommendations are binding on the Govern- n1ent and therefore, the constitutional safeguard afforded by Art. 311(2) cannot be said to have been contravened by the appellant. The Secretary of State for India v. l. M. Lal, (1945] F.C.R. 103, High Commissioner for India and High Commissioner for Pakistan v. l. M. Lal, 75 I.A. 225, Khem Chand v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 1080, State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, [1964] 2. S.C.R. 1 and A. N. D'Silva v. Union of India, [1962] Supp. I S.C.R. 968, referred to. In dealing with writ petition filed by public servants who have been ~isn1issed or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311(2), the I-Iigh C:ourt under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether th.e ~on?us1011 of the Government on \Vhich the impugned ord
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.