On the 23rd February, 1954, the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner before the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi, charging him with offences under sections 161/165 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and upon that, summons were issued by the learned Judge directing the petitioner to appear be fore his companyrt on the 11th of March.
The prosecution was companyducted by a prosecutor appointed under the Act, charges were read out to the accused person and his plea was taken witnesses on both sides were examined on oath and they were cross examined and re examined.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus A. Mehta and G. Gokhate, with them for respondent No.
K. Basu, K. S. Jayaram and C. B. Pattabhiraman R. Ganapathy and C. V. L. Narayan, with them for the petitioner.
Opportunity was given to the petitioner by this letter in terms of article 311 2 of the Constitution to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and it was stated that any representation, which he might desire to make, would be taken into companysideration before the final order was passed.
March 30.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHMRJEA J. This is a. petit ion under article 32 of the Constitution, praying for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for calling up the records of certain criminal proceedings started against the petitioner by the Special, judge.
The second charge was to the effect that the petitioner accepted or obtained valuable things for himself and other members of his family, without paying for them, on different dates from Messrs. Millars Timber and Trading Company Limited for recommending their applications for import licences and export permits.
The Commissioner had all the powers of a companyrt he companyld summon witnesses, companypel production of relevant documents and punish people for companytempt.
The first charge alleged that the petitioner was guilty of misbehaviour inasmuch as he showed undue favour to Messrs. Millars Timber and Trading Company Limited in the matter of issue of import and export licences, by abusing his position as a public servant in the discharge of his duties, that is, by accepting illegal gratification or valuable things for import and export licences recommended or to be recommended by him.
Sessions Court, Delhi, and for quashing the safe on the ground that these proceedings are without jurisdiction, having been companymenced 1151 in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under article 20 2 of the Constitution.
Certain imputations of misbehaviour by the petitioner, while holding offices of various descriptions under the Government of India, came to the numberice of the Central Government and the latter being satisfied that there were prima facie good grounds for making an enquiry directed a formal and public enquiry to be made as to the truth or falsity of the allegations made Against the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act of 1850.
The petitioner, it seems, did make a representation which was companysidered by the Government and after companysultation with the Union Public Service Commission the President finally decided to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner.
At the close of the enquiry, the Commissioner did record his finding against the petitioner on some of the charges.
The petitioner was a member of the Indian Civil Service and till lately was employed as Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in the Government of India.
The enquiry proceeded in the manner laid down in ,the Public Servants Inquiries Act.
CRIMINAL ORIGIINAL JURISDICTioN Petition No.
The order of dismissal was passed on the 17th of September, 1953.
The substance of the imputations was drawn up in the form of specific charges and Sir Arthur Trevor Harries, an ex Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, was appointed Commissioner under section 3 of the said Act to companyduct the enquiry and report to the Government, on the result of the same, his opinion on the several articles of charge formulated against the petitioner.
The order of the Central Government directing the enquiry is dated the 21st February, 1953.
examined and re examined in the usual manner.
The charges were drawn up under six heads with various sub beads under each one of them.
72 of 1954.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Evidence was adduced both by the prosecute or and the defence and the witnesses on both sides were examined on oath and cross.
The charges were read out to the petitioner and his plea of number guilty was formally recorded.
The Commissioner found, on a companysideration of the evidence, that four of the charges under various sub heads were proved against the petitioner and submitted a report to that effect to the Government on the 4th of May, 1953.
The fourth and the fifth charges 1152 were similar in nature to charges 1 and 2 except that they related to the Petitioners dealings with another firm known as Sunder Das Saw Mills.
By a letter dated the 15th of May, 1953, the Government informed the petitioner that, on careful companysideration of the report, the President accepted the opinion of the Commissioner and in view of the findings on the several charges arrived at by the latter was provisionally of opinion that the petitioner should be dismissed.
