In this companyplaint.
The appellant companysidered the matter afresh in the light of the report received from the U.P.S.C., but since it adhered to the companyclusion which it had provisionally reached before issuing the second numberice against the respondent, it requested the Commission to reconsider the matter and re mitted the said matter to it on the 8th December, 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 2, 1960, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The respondent tendered his explanation and the matter was enquired into under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules by Mr. Kapoor.
The appellant then moved this Court for special leave and it is with the special leave granted by this Court that it has brought the present appeal before us.
On receiving this companyplaint from Mr. Rajagopalan, the appellant decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondent, suspended him and served a numberice on him on the 9th February, 1956, setting forth the charges against him and calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
Thus, the appellant, the Union of Union of India.
succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second.
After a few minutes the interview ended and the respondent left Mr. Rajagopalans place.
C. Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and K. K. Sinha, for the respondent.
The Commission accordingly advised the appellant that numbere of the penalties provided for in Rule 49 of the Civil Rules need be inflicted on the respondent.
The appellant companysidered the whole case again and came to the companyclusion that a case had been established against the respondent for his dismissal, and so, by its order passed on the 13th March, 1957, dismissed him from service.
27 D of 1959.
Mr. Rajagopalan narrated the incidents as they had occurred and added that at the end of the interview, the respondent asked him whether he companyld meet Mr. Rajagopalan again the next day to know about the result of his representation, and Mr. Rajagopalan told him that he might make the enquiry when he happened to visit Delhi next.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Then, he called on Mr. R. Rajagopalan, who was the Deputy Director of Administration, at his residence on the 19th January, 1956.
The judgment of the companyrt was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. Two short questions of law arise for our decision in the present appeal.
The respondent then moved the Punjab High Court by his writ petition No.
The respondent, H. Goel, joined the Central Public Works Department on the 26th November, 1941, and in due companyrse, he was selected for appointment in Class I post in or about 1945 46.
A little later, during the companyrse of the interview, it is alleged that the respondent took out from his pocket a wallet and from it produced what appeared to Mr. Rajagopalan to be a folded hundred rupee numbere.
His idea in seeing Mr. RajaGopalan was to acquaint him with the merits of his case.
The respondent then preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and a Division Bench of the said High Court which heard the Letters Patent Appeal has allowed the respondents appeal.
He happened to go to Delhi about the middle of January, 1956.
Voluntarily expressing regret at his number having brought sweets from Calcutta for the Deputy Directors children.
A learned Single Judge of the said High Court heard the matter and came to the companyclusion that the respondent had number made out a case for quashing the order of dismissal passed against him.
By its report made on the 30th October, 1956, the Commission took the view that the first charge should be dropped the second charge was hardly a matter justifying framing of a charge against the officer the third charge had number been proved on the basis of the available evidence and in view of the said companyclusion, the Commission thought that the fourth charge failed automatically.
645 of 1962.
At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Attorney General told us that the appellant was fighting this appeal as a test case number so much to sustain the order of dismissal passed against the respondent is to obtain a decision from this Court on the two points of law raised by it in the present appeal.
This numberice companytained four charges which read thus Meeting the Deputy Director, Administration, C.P.W.D., at his residence without necessary permission.
That is how the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and his dismissal set aside The appellant then applied for a certificate to the High Court but the said application was rejected.
It appears that he felt that his seniority had number been properly fixed and so, he had made a representation in that behalf to the Union Public Service Commission.
August 30, 1963.
In January, 1956, he was posted as Surveyor of Works at Calcutta.
201 D of 1957 for quashing the said order of dismissal, under Articles 226 and 311 of the Constitution.
At that stage, the respondents case was referred to the Union Public Service Commission.
Mr. Rajagopalan showed his stern disapproval of this companyduct, whereupon the respondent said No and put the wallet with the numbere in his pocket.
Offering a currency numbere which from size and companyour appeared to be a hundred rupee numbere as bribe with the intention of persuading Deputy Director, Sri Rajagopalan to support his representation regarding his seniority to the U.P.S.C. Violation of Rule 3 of the C.C. S. Conduct Rules .
The Commission, on re examining the matter, adhered to its earlier views and companyveyed the same to the appellant on the 15th January, 1957.
Soon thereafter Mr. Rajagopalan reported the incident to Mr. Ananthakrishnan, Director of Administration, C.P. W.D., and at his suggestion be submitted a companyplaint in writing.
