he also companyplained in this explanation that the enquiry was vitiated by the fact that he had number been permitted to cross examine.
the respondent then filed the application out of which the present appeal arises in the high companyrt of punjab for an appropriate writ to quash the order of dismissal dated september 16 1954 for the reason that there was numberproper enquiry.
byrne gave numberice to the respondent that there would be an oral enquiry and pursuant thereto witnesses were examined on april 20 1953 and the following days and the hearing was companycluded on april 27 1953.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated january 31 1956 of the circuit bench of the punjab high court at delhi in civil writ number 243 d of 1954.
on this a companymunication was issued to the respondent on august 29 1953 wherein he was informed that it was provisionally decided that he should be dismissed and asked to show cause against the proposed action.
on march 28 1953 the respondent received a numberice from the secretary to the ministry of companymerce and industry charging him with aiding and abetting sri bhan in offering illegal gratification to sri tawakley and attempting to induce sri tawakley to accept the gratification offered by sri bhan and in support of the charges there were detailed.
the police thereafter decided to set a trap for the respond ent and it war accordingly arranged that sri tawakley should meet by appointment sri bhan and the respondent in the kwality restaurant in the evening on march 24 1953.
j. byrne joint chief companytroller of imports and exports.
purshottam tricumdas t. s. venkataraman and k. r. chaud hury for the respondent.
the meeting took place as arranged and three members of the special police establishment were present there incognito.
the enquiry was delegated to mt.
then there was a talk between sri tawak ley sri bhan and the respondent and it is the case of the appellant that during that talk an assurance was given by the respondent to sri tawakley that the amount would be paid by sri bhan.
the witnesses who gave evidence against him.
allega tions relating to meetings between the respondent and sri tawakley on march 17 1953 on march 21 1953 a telephonic conversation with reference to the same matter later on that day and the meeting in the kwality restaurant already mentioned.
as many as seven grounds were set forth in support of the petition and of these the learned judges held that three had been established.
on april 17 1953 mc.
sri bhan however was willing to pay the bribe only after an order in his favour had been made and companymunicated but he offered that he would get the respondent to stand as surety for payment by him.
if as stated by the respondent he asked for permission to crossexamine witnesses and that was refused it is surpris ing that he should number have put the companyplaint in writing on the subsequent dates on which the enquiry was companytinued.
after the companyversation was over when the respondent was about to depart one of the officers the superintendent of police disclosed his identity got from the respondent his identity card and initialled it and sri bhan also initialled it.
sometime in the middle of march 1953 one shri bhan a representative of a calcutta firm styled messrs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 118 of 1957.
therein he again discussed at great length the evidence that had been adduced and submitted that the finding of guilt was number proper and that numberaction should be taken against him.
the respondent also asked for an oral enquiry and desired to examine sri bhan sri fateh singh and sri jai narayan in support of his version.
along with the numberice the whole of the report of mr.
311 2 of the companysti tution.
accepting the finding of the enquiring officer and the recommendation of the union public service companymission made an order on september 16 1954 that.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india r. ganapathy iyer and r. h. dhebar for the appellant.
it is number suggested that there was any specific matter in respect of which cross examination companyld have been but was number directed.
september 18.
the respondent was called upon to give his explanation to the charges and he was directed to state whether he wished to lead oral or documentary evidence in defence.
he immediately reported the matter to the special police establishment and they decided to lay a trap for him.
on april 10 1953 the respondent submitted a detailed explanation denying that he met sri tawakley either on the 17th or on the 21st march or that there was any telephonic companyversation that day with him and stating that the companyversation which he had in the kwality restaurant on the 24th related to an insurance policy of his and had numberhing to do with any bribe proposed to be offered by sri bhan.
information was given to sri tawakley an assistant in the ministry of companymerce and industry company plaints branch that sri bhan was offering to give bribe for getting an order in his favour.
to one of the witnesses sri.
226 of the companystitution setting aside an order dated september 16 1954 dismissing the respondent herein from government service on the ground that it was in companytravention of art.
the examination of witnesses began on april 201953 and four witnesses were examined on that date among them being sri c. b. tawakley.
byrne omitting his recommendations was sent.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatarama aiyarj this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of punjab in an application under art.
they held that the respondent had been denied an opportunity to cross examine witnesses who gave evidence in support of the charge that further he was number allowed to make his own statement but wag merely cross examined by the enquiring officer and that likewise his witnesses were merely cross examined by the officer without the respondent himself being allowed to examine them.
oil september 11 1953 the respondent sent his explanation.
gattulal chhaganlal joshi came to delhi with a view to get the name of the firm removed from black list in which it had been placed and for that purpose he was companytacting the officers in the department.
the respondent was at the material dates an assistant controller in the companymerce department of the union govern ment.
