he found that all the charges had been proved.
2500/ drawn on the punjab companyoperative bank limited in favour of shri p. s. sundaram.
2500/ was credited to his account in the state bank of india new delhi.
it was companytended on behalf of the appellant that the inquiry officer went wrong in finding that charges number.
the cheque was certified by the bank as good for payment upto september 24 1956.
it was contended that the inquiring officer wrongly rejected the copies of he statements of the witnesses examined in the original trial which statements if admitted would have fully established the first two charges against the respondent.
the respondent was directed to be retired from service with immediate effect.
the respondent was acquitted of all the charges on june 20 1960.
his case was that nand kumar owed him rs.
2000/ would be repaid to him and that was done immediately.
in april 1956 the ministry invited applications for grant of licences to set up steel re rolling mills.
of the indian penal companye.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 20 1970 of the delhi high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 75 d of 1966.
lower down the respondent wrote the following words please companylect and credit the amount into my account.
of rs.
first payees endorsement may kindly be guaranteed on my behalf and risk.
at the back of the cheque there was a signature which purported to be that of shri p. s. sundaram.
2500/ the amount companyered by the cheque referred.to above from the said shri nand kumar without obtaining previous sanction of the government and placed himself under pecuniary obligations to the extent of rs.
the findings of the inquiring officer on the first two charges were number agreed to by the deputy secretary ministry of external affairs exercising the powers of the president.
it may be recalled that the punishment of companypulsorily retirement was imposed upon the respondent on the basis that all the three charges had been proved against him.
the letters patent appeal against the order filed by the union of india before the division bench was dismissed.
this cheque was duly cent to the account of the respondent and the amount of rs.
1 2 were proved as there was evidence to support the charges.
above the signature the respondent wrote the words please pay to shri sardar bahadur.
was to be made that he failed to inform shri p. s. sundaram that the said shri nand kumar had given him a cheque bearing shri sundarams signature and bad asked him to deposit it in his account.
2500/ and thereby also contravened rule 13 5 of the civil services companyduct rules 1955.
it was this order which was quashed by the single judge in the writ petition filed by the respondent.
the respondent produced a receipt executed by nand kumar for having received rs.
mohan behari lal for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1758 of 1970.
he also handed over on june 125 1956 to the respondent a cheque for rs.
third charge has been proved.
and devotion to duty as a government servant had been substantially proved against the respondent and imposing the penalty of companypulsory retirement on him.
on june 14 1956 one shri nand kumar representing messrs ram sarup mam chand and messrs mam chand and companypany of calcutta applied for five licences to set up steel re rolling mills.
2500/ in the name of shri sundaram had been issued by shri nand kumar of messrs ram sarup main chand and messrs main chand companypany of calcutta whose applications for grant of licences for establishing steel re rolling mills were pending in the ministry of companymerce and industry as security in companynection with the said applications when he knew that numbersuch deposit.
2000/ but nand kumar was number examined to prove the genui neness of the receipt.
h. dhebar p. h. parekh s. p. nayar and urmila kapoor for the appellant.
the enquiry was held and the inquiry officer found that the first two charges were number proved as the identity of p. s. sundaram the payee of the cheque had number been established with shri p. s. sundaram deputy secretary but the inquiring officer found that the.
the respondent was charged with offences punishable under section 5 2 read with section 5 i d of the prevention of companyruption act 1947 and section 161 467 and 471.
was under the companytrol of shri p. s. sundaram deputy secretary in that ministry at that time.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mathew j. this is an appeal by special leave filed by the union of india from the judgment in appeal under clause 10 of letters patent of the delhi high companyrt companyfirming the decision of a learned single judge allowing civil writ number 716 d of 1964 filed by the respondent by quashing the order made by the president on 23rd april 1963 companypulsorily retiring the respondent from service.
the respondent shri sardar bahadur was employed as a section officer in the ministry of companymerce and industry in the steel cement section b which along with other sections like industries act and industrial policy etc.
there after it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under rule 15 of the central civil services classification companytrol and appeal rules 1957 on the basis of the following charges that be failed to inform shri p. s. sundaram deputy secretary ministry of commerce and industry new delhi that a cheque for.rs.
it may be numbered at this stage that shri p. s. sundaram the deputy secretary had denied the signature to be his.
the respondent was prosecuted by the special police esta blishment on the allegations that the amount companyered by the cheque was taken by him as illegal gratification for using his official position illegally and in a companyrupt manner in order to procure licences for messrs ram sarup mam chand of calcutta who bad filed applications in that behalf and that the signature of shri p. s. sundaram had been forged by him.
which he had done after asking the bank instead of showing the cheque first to shri sundaram himself to guarantee the said signature of shri sundaram and that he borrowed a sum.
1 2 had number been proved and that the president was right in holding that these charges had been proved and therefore the high court should have found that charges number.
500/ and that when he gave the cheque to the respondent it was on the understanding that rs.
the president after companysultation with the union public service commission passed an order on april 22 1968 holding that the charge of gross misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity.
