the union of india preferred an appeal against the judgment of the subordinate judge delhi but the appeal was dismissed by the senior subordinate judge delhi on december 21 1954 and the decree of the trial court was companyfirmed.
the report then stated that the enquiry with regard to the first two charges had been held in the presence of the appellant and the rest were enquired into ex parte as the appellant had absented himself from the enquiry.
on july 9 1949 the appellant was served with a charge sheet under r. 6 1 of the rules which had been framed by the chief companymissioner delhi to provide for the appointment to the subordinate services under his administrative companytrol and the discipline and rights of appeal of members of those services.
action accordingly.
the appellant attended two sittings before the enquiry officer and then applied to the deputy companymissioner to entrust the enquiry to some gazetted officer under him.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated numberember 1 1955 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in regular second appeal number 28 d of 1955 arising out of the judgment and decree dated december 31 1954 of the companyrt of the senior subordinate judge at delhi in regular civil appeal number 685 of 1954 affirming the judgment and decree of subordinate judge third class delhi in suit number 273/213 of 1953.
on september 6 1956 the plaintiff obtained special leave from this companyrt and has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned single judge.
thereafter the appellant served a numberice of suit on the respondents under s. 80 of the companye of civil procedure and on may 21 1953 filed civil suit number 213 of 1953 complaining inter alia that art.
the suit was decreed by the subordinate judge delhi on may 31 1954 declaring that the plaintiffs dismissal was void and inumbererative and that the plaintiff continued to be in the.
tandon 1.
the appellant has also been allowed to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis.
i further order that money which has been proved to have been taken by shri khem chand from various societies be recovered from the security deposit furnished by him.
the general tenumber of shri j. b. tandons report however suggests that shri mahipal singh did arrive at definite findings on twelve charges.
311 2 had number been complied with.
on december 13 1951 shri j. b. tandon made a report.
1082 1957.
the appellant duly submitted his explanation in writing.
a. s. additional district magis trateon the 24th numberember 1951 at 10 30 a.m. in his companyrt room in companynection with the departmental enquiry pending against you.
the report also recommended that the appellants gun licence be cancelled and that he be directed to surrender his licence and deposit the gun in the district malkhana and that the money which had been proved to have been taken by the appellant from various societies might also be recovered from the security deposit furnished by him.
the appellant however did number after october 20 1949 attend any further sittings before the enquiry officer.
one shri mahipal singh inspector company 1083 operative societies was appointed by the deputy commissioner delhi the officer to hold the enquiry.
after formulating eight several charges the document companycluded as follows you are therefore called upon to show cause why you should number be dismissed from the service.
the enquiry officer thereupon framed four additional charges against the appellant namely 1 for his refusal to attend the enquiry 2 for his refusal to accept the service of the order of the enquiry officer 3 for his absence without permission and 4 for his misconduct in snatching away papers from one mohd.
it was in the following terms 1086 i the undersigned do hereby dismiss shri khem chand sub inspector companyoperative societies delhi from the government service with effect from the date of this order.
it appears that at or about this time the appellant became involved in a criminal case on a charge under s. 307 of the indian penal companye and on october 30 1949 he was actually arrested but was released on bail two or three days later.
there is numberpositive and definite statement in shri j. b. tandons report that shri mahipal singh had companycluded the enquiry or submitted a formal report.
the reply should reach the asst.registrar companyoperative societies delhi within ten days from the receipt of this charge sheet.
and xiv and that numberenquiry had been held on those charges.
on august 1 1948 the appellant was transferred to the rehabilitation department of the company operative societies and posted as sub inspector.
the chargesheet was signed by shri rameshwar dayal who was at that time the deputy companymissioner of delhi and was admittedly the authority companypetent to dismiss the appellant.
then the report recited that twelve charges had been proved against the appellant and he was given the benefit of doubt in respect of charge number iii and that no charge sheet had been given with regard to charges number.
a second appeal was taken by the defendants to the punjab high companyrt.
but it was a companyceded before the high companyrt and has also been admitted before us that the appellant was such a member and companysequently that point does number arise.
december 13.
you should also state in your reply whether you wish to be heard in person or whether you will produce defence.
eventually on may 20 1950 the appellant was discharged from the criminal charge.
at the foot of shri j. b. tandons report the following endorsement appears over the signature of the deputy commissioner delhi under date december 14 1951 the report is approved.
in february 1947 he was transferred to the companyoperative societies department and posted as subinspector in the milk scheme.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 353 of 1957.
this request of the appellant was rejected and he was informed accordingly.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india r. gana pathy iyer and r. h. dhebar for the respondents.
indeed the appellant was warned that the enquiry officer had been authorised to proceed with the enquiry ex parte if the appellant failed to attend the enquiry.
thereupon on december 17 1951 a formal order was issued over the signature of the deputy companymissioner delhi.
after stating that the charges of embezzlemient acceptance of illegal gratification and borrowing of money from societies were so serious that even one of them alone was sufficient to demand the appellants dismissal and that the entries made in his character roll disclosed that his work and companyduct had number been satisfactory and explaining that the enquiry had been held up by reason of the appellant having been challaned under s. 307 indian penal companye shri j. b. 1085 tandon in his report formulated the following points for consideration namely 1 what penalty should be imposed on shri khem chand for the eleven charges proved against him?
janardhan sharma for the appellant.
ishaq and using unparliamentary and threatening language.
out of the twelve charges said to have been proved against the appellant shri j. b. tandon found that no charge had been actually framed in one case and therefore he reduced the number of proved charges to eleven and proceeded to base his recommendation on them.
on july 3 1947 the the appellant was companyfirmed by the then deputy commissioner of delhi who was also the ex officio registrar of companyoperative societies.
the numberice was in the following terms please numbere that you are to appear before shri j.b.
the facts leading up to the present appeal are shortly as follows on april 6 1943 the appellant was appointed a sub inspector under the delhi audit fund.
he has been found guilty of the charges of embezzlement acceptance of illegal gratification making wrong statementmisbehaviour at the time of the enquiry and refusal to receive order to attend the enquiry.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das c. j. this appeal by special leave granted by this court to the plaintiff appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed on numberember 1 1955 by a single judge of the punjab high companyrt sitting in the circuit bench at delhi in regular second appeal number 28 d of 1955.
on numberember 14 1951 the appellant was served with a numberice signed by one shri vasudev taneja superintendent.
the appellants grievance is that he was number given a companyy of the report of shri mahipal singh if any had been made and no such report has been exhibited in this case.
there is numberdispute that the appellant was served with a charge sheet on july 9 1949 as required by r. 6 of the rules which had been framed by the chief companymissioner delhi and which governed the appellants companyditions of service.
on march 15 1952 the appellant appealed to the chief commissioner but his appeal was dismissed on december 8 1952.
after reciting the charge sheet companytaining the numberice calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service and setting out the charges companytained in the numberice and summarising the explanation submitted by the appellant with regard to each of the charges and reciting the prayer of the appellant that the enquiry officer should be changed and the rejection thereof and the framing of additional charges and the appellants absence from the enquiry with effect from october 20 1949 the report proceeded to set out the actual charges which shri mahipal singh was appoint ed to enquire into.
on july 1 1949 the appellant was suspended by the then deputy commissioner delhi.
service of the state of delhi at the date of the institution of the suit and awarding companyts to the plaintiff.
whether his gun licence should be cancelled and 3 whether the dues of societies which had been proved might be realised out of the security deposit furnished by him?
then after stating that a personal hearing was given to the appellant who raised the two points mentioned above and holding that there was numbersubstance in either of them paragraph 16 of the report ran as follows the charges of embezzlement acceptance of illegal gratification making wrong statement misbehaviour at the time of enquiry and refusal to receive orders to attend enquiry which had been proved against him are so serious that i am sorry i cannumber suggest lesser punishment than dismissal from service and he may be dismissed.
