After the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee had gone on for some time and some witnesses were examined, A. K. Roy Choudhury was transferred to some other place and the vacancy in the companymittee was filled up by R. N. Vakil, his successor in office.
Hence the present appeal by special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 13, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
It is companynmon ground that the proceedings were number started afresh but were companytinued from the stage at which A. Roy Choudhury had dropped out.
According to the High Court If the enquiring authority has a duty to companye to a companyclusion as to the guilt of the, delinquent upon an evaluation or assessment of the evidence, then it is absolutely necessary that he who should decide the case should hear the evidence.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Union of India.
He thereupon moved the High Court and a learned single Judge quashed the order of dismissal.
Rajendra Chaudhuri, Kanwal Singh and Kaushalya, for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
On 1st February, 1961 the Chief Accounts Officer, Eastern Railway issued the second show cause numberice and by an order dated March 20, 1961 he was dismissed from service.
The charge sheet had been issued after a fact finding companymittee of the very same persons had looked into the matter.
The respondent used to serve as treasure guard in the Eastern Railway.
The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.
1186 N of 1967.
A charge sheet was issued by the Chief Cashier of the Railway on August 3, 1959 wherein allegations of misappropriation of cash belonging to Government were levelled against him.
563 of 1964.
The Judgment of the.
The companymittee submitted a report finding the respondent guilty of all the three charges framed against him.
An Inquiry Committee companysisting of three persons, namely, A. K. Roy Choudhury, Divisional Accounts Officer, Mani Chakraborty, Divisional Personnel Officer and H. N. Chatterjee, Divisional Engineer, was companystituted to inquire into the charges.
Reliance was placed mainly on the decision of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswararao and others A. P. State Road Transport Corporation another .
The respondents appeal to the General Manager of the Railway was unsuccessful.
It was impossible to evaluate the evidence of a witness taken on proxy, because one of the salient features of such proceedings is to observe the demeanour of the witness.
