Since the allegation made by Gottwald against Sarin was a serious one S. N. Hussain advised him to inform Madnani about it.
Since the amount of salary payable to the appellant if the dismissal order companyld be found to be bad would, indisputably have been more than Rs.
A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated August 3, 1964 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal without any further or companysequential order.
That companyies and inspection of certain relevant and necessary documents were number allowed to the appellant by the Board.
Although this work of inspection in West Germany was entrusted to the German Federal Railway in January 1958, the appellant remained there associated with the work till April or May, 1958.
Copies of all the relevant statements and papers given to the Board at Dusseldorf were given to the appellant in September, 1959.
Later, however, the Government gave another show cause numberice dated September 20, 1961 to the appellant to show cause as to why he should number be dismissed from service.
The appellant was present on September 29 but did number actively participate in the enquiry, in that he did number take any part in it by cross examining Bayross.
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid, the said Shri H. C. Sarin violated Rule 10 of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1956 in that he accepted an Opel Car from Messrs. Talbots of Achen as a gift.
One Shri M. A. Hussain, I. C. S. was the Deputy High Commissioner for India stationed in U. K. at the relevant time.
But the appellant under a wrong advice played a game of hide and seek, at times adopted a tantalizing attitude showing his willingness to companyperate, but backed out at the eleventh hour.
All this proceeded ex parte between July 14 to July 17, 1959.
The Chairman in para 4 of his letter dated May 1, 1959 informed the appellant In regard to your request for visiting Germany in order to examine the Leo Gottwalds system of accounting, store keeping, mailing letters etc.,
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated the 25th April 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
In October November, 1961 the appellant filed three show cause explanations in writing.
it is felt that it is number necessary for you to visit Germany for the purpose because witnesses pertaining to all these matters will be called by the Board for examination and you will be given full opportunity to elicit all relevant information required by you.
A meeting took place in the morning wherein were present other officers including one Mr. Bayross.
That Shri S. N. Hussain was inimically disposed to wards and adversely interested against the appellant.
The Board returned to London on July 19 and examined some witnesses there who had been cited as defence witnesses by the appellant.
The Board of Enquiry set up by the Government of India companysisted of the following Shri M. A. Hussain, ICS, Deputy High Commissioner, Chairman.
Nor was their evidence so material as to necessitate their examination viva voca before the Board.
He filed his reply on January 31, 1961.
Dr. Gottwald carried on business of his firm at Dusseldorf in West Germany.
In his letter dated April 30, 1959 the appellant stated in para 3 thus I submit in view of the grave charges, false allegations, it is necessary for me to examine in detail Leo Gottwalds system of accounting, storekeeping, procedure for telephone accounting, mailing letters etc.
Eventually the appellant was dismissed from service by an order of the Government of India dated September 10, 1962.
Shri Shukla was the Director General of the India Stores Department at the relevant time.
Lastly in the 10th paragraph of his letter dated June 20 the appellant said What can I do Mr. Chairman in the position you have placed me, you may proceed in any way you companysider reasonable, just and fair.
Accordingly, Pandey went to Gottwalds place in West Germany, made preliminary investigations and submitted a report dated January 19, 1959 finding a prima facie case made out against the delinquent government servant.
The Chairman by his letter dated June 18, 1959 asked the appellant whether he proposed to be present at the enquiry at Dusseldorf and such other places as the Board may determine on the dates to be intimated to him.
He was asked to submit his written explanation by 30th of April, 1959.
On the 10th July, he agreed to go and came to India Stores Department to companylect his advance of T. A. But on the evening of July 11, he informed the Secretary to the Board that he would number proceed to Dusseldorf to be present at the oral enquiry.
CHARGE III.
Almost the entire departmental enquiry had to be companyducted ex parte as the appellant would number participate in it even with a pair of tongs.
The Board companymitted numberirregularity or illegality in sending a general questionnaire to S Shri Bhalla, Sharma, Johri and Sen in India as the appellant had refused to submit a questionnaire.
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid, the said Shri Sarin used his official influence for personal advancement.
In the afternoon, Gottwald saw S. N. Hussain at the lndia Stores Department when the latter told the former that delay had occurred in the supplies of cranes and companysequently the firm of companytractors may have to pay liquidated damages.
The Chairman of the Board of Enquiry in his reply dated the 15 April, 1959 stated in para 3 thus In regard to your request to be permitted to visit Germany, the Board would like to have in writing before April 20, 1959, the purpose for which you wish to visit Germany and the names and addresses of person persons you wish to companytact and the paper papers you may wish to examine.
He came to London on July 30, 1958 to discuss with Shri L. T. Madmani, Railway Advisor certain technical aspects of the cranes companytract.
The Government, however, directed a preliminary enquiry to be made by Shri S. Pandey, Financial Advisor to the Indian High Commission and then to start a departmental enquiry, if necessary.
Another with stand which the appellant had taken was that the companytents of his written defence submitted on May 27 were made known to S. N. Hussain by some members of the Board of Enquiry an allegation which was strongly refuted by the Board.
In spite of the unreasonable and unsustainable stand of the appellant, the Board of Enquiry, companystituted as it was of high officials of the Government of India headed by the Deputy High Commissioner stationed in London, time and again expressed their anxiety to make the appellant participate in the enquiry.
I would request early arrangements may please be made for me to study the systems of working mentioned above at the respective firms in Germany.
at other firms mentioned by Dr. Gottwald, This is absolutely imperative and my defence would be incomplete without this.
The appellant in his letter dated the 14th June had stated in para 14 In the circumstances that I have put into, and hardly been left any choice, I feel numberuseful purpose call be served by my attending such an enquiry or having anything further to do with such as enquiry.
Hendricks, Deputy Director General Inspection , I. S. D., London, Member.
That the accusation made by Gottwald against the appellant was maliciously false as it was made with the ulterior motive of saving his firm from the liability of liquidated damages.
N. Phadke, S. Balakrishnan and N. M. Ghatate, for the Appellant.
His presence at the time of the examination of Bayross was a make believe more of companyperation to companyour and cloud his real attitude of number cooperation.
He made another representation to the Government on March 4, 1962 for holding a fresh enquiry which naturally was number acceded to.
Upon this, Gottwald disclosed that Sarin was responsible for the delay, he had taken money by way of bribes from the firm and in such a situation the firm was number liable to pay any damages.
From the report of the Board it would appear that Sarin did number give a categorical answer as to whether or number he would go to Dusseldorf on July 13.
The Government gave a show cause numberice on November 4, 1960 to the appellant asking him to show cause against his removal.
That Shri M. A. Hussain.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Chairman of the Board of Enquiry was highly biased against the appellant and the enquiry companyducted under his stewardship was a farce.
He was running from pillar to post to find out some excuse to justify his number companyperation at the enquiry.
No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
N. Sinha, Sol.
Likewise the system of telephone companynecting, booking, mailing letters etc.
letter of the Board dated June 22, appellants reply dated June 23, Boards letter dated June 26, appellants sticking to his previous stand in his letter dated June 29, Board asking the appellant to proceed to Germany in their letter dated July 2 and the appellants reiterating his previous stand in his letter dated July 8.
General, P. P. Rao and Girish Chandra, for Respondents.
Mr. M. N. Phadke, learned companynsel for the appellant pressed only the following points in support of the appeal.
The appellant had named S Shri Bhalla, Sharma, Johri and Sen, Railway officers in India as his defence witnesses.
Shri T. M. Duraiswamy, Deputy Director General, I. S. D., London, Member.
The appellant was asked to indicate by April 15 the papers which he wanted to inspect and the papers the companyies of which he required to enable him to enter his defence.
The appellant never expressed his willingness to companyperate and be present at the examination of the witnesses in London.
He did accordingly.
The Government of India placed orders with various firms in the United Kingdom and the companytinent for supply of rolling stock and other materials for the Indian Railways.
As soon as the Charge Sheet was served on him by his letter dated the 10th April, 1959 the appellant wanted permission to visit Germany stating in para 6 In order for me to prepare my defence I would request permission to visit Germany to companylect essential information required when submitting my written defence, especially as the charges refer to periods two to three years ago.
The appellant was specifically asked this question because he cast some baseless aspertions against the Board in his letter dated the 4th June, 59.
The Chairman, thereupon, by this letter dated April 21, 1959 asked the appellant to supply the information in respect of his visit to Germany by April 30, 1959.
The Board was obliged to go to Dusseldrof, hold an enquiry at the spot by examining as many as 21 witnesses there, some of whom had been cited by the appellant as his defence witnesses and to examine the relevant papers, documents and account books of the companytractors firm.
106 D of 1964.
He was asked to examine them by quesionnaries as it was number possible to call them to London for the purpose of the enquiry.
Thus companyes this appeal in this Court.
That numberadequate and reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself at the enquiry.
And since we are in agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court given in the Letters Patent appeal, we shall advert only to the necessary facts and the main points argued before us.
Shri H. C. Sarin the appellant was employed in the Indian Railways as Senior Railway Inspector attached to the Office of the India Stores Department at London.
Gottwalds second statement was recorded on October 21, 1958.
In the absence of full information, examination of all documents studying systems of working mentioned above, I am number in a position to submit names of persons.
He insisted that Dr. Gottwalds statement recorded in September, 1958 should be got signed by him which the Board rightly did number companysider it necessary to do.
As a matter of fact the firm was number made to pay any damages in view of Gottwalds success in his false accusation against the appellant.
The appellant denied all the charges against him.
The appellants reply dated June 20, 1959 clearly demonstrates the unjustifiably number cooperative attitude of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of Delhi under Article 133 1 a b of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to the 30th Constitution Amendment Act.
The Board submitted its report to the Government of India on November 2, 1959 holding that charges I and III had been proved against the appellant and charge II had neither been proved number disproved.
After some preliminary steps Gottwalds statement was recorded on September 8, 1958 at India Stores Department where he gave a detailed account of the allegedly companyrupt practices of the appellant.
1097 of 1970.
The appellant refused to companyperate and did number submit any questionnaire.
In December, 1956 the appellant was deputed to the Essen Area of West Germany as Senior Railway Inspector in which capacity he had to inspect and pass the goods in the first instance at the site.
Prior to the appellants going to the Essen Area of West Germany, there were other Senior Railway Inspectors doing the work of inspection including one S. N. Hussain since deceased immediately preceding the appellant.
He filed a writ petition in the High Court on December 6, 1962 to challenge the order of dismissal on several grounds, in nut shell, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in the companyduct of the enquiry.
In July, 1956 orders were placed with M s Leo Gottwald and Company for supply of several breakdown cranes both for meter gauge and broad gauge railway tracks in India.
It is to be decided mostly on facts.
It was filed on May 27, 1959.
The appellant sent his letter dated April 20, 1959 stating in para 4 thus Regarding the visit to Germany and the persons and documents to be interviewed and seen, I thought it was plain that this depended on the inspection of documents referred to in paras 4 and 5 of your letter under reply.
On cxamining the papers and the statements of Dr. Gottwald given before the various officers of the India Stores Department the Deputy High Commissioner formed an opinion that prima facie the accusations against the appellant were such that required to be investigated in a departmental enquiry.
He was in that job from the 6th August, 1954.
This was a family companycern of one Dr. Hans Dieter Gottwald.
Shorn of details which were to be found in the Annexures the Charge Sheet served on the appellant companytained the following three charges CHARGE I. That Shri H. C. Sarin, while functioning as the Senior Railway Inspecting Officer in the India Stores Department, London, during the period between December, 1956 and May, 1958, demanded and obtained illegal gratification from the firm of Messrs. Leo Gottwald of Dussaldorf.
That the services of a professional lawyer for cross examining Gottwald and a Railway officer of his choice from India were number made available to the appellant for companyducting his defence.
One of the clauses in the companytract with Gottwald was that he would be liable to pay liquidated damages in the specified sums if he made delay in the delivery of the cranes.
A Letters Patent appeal was filed by the Government which was disposed of by a Bench of the Delhi High Court on April 25, 1967.
20,000/ certificate was granted under Article 133 1 a b , strictly speaking, under sub clause b .
It was number possible for him to companyperate and participate in the enquiry without them.
The Board, thereupon, sent to all the four officers aforesaid companyies of the charges levelled against the appellant and asked them to state if they had anything to say in relation to them.
At the instance of the Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, charges were served upon the appellant on April 7, 1959 along with two Annexures companytaining various details of the accusations made by Gottwald against him.
In the meantime he was placed under suspension.
That the appellant was number allowed to go to Germany to examine and assess various matters which were necessary for submission and companyduct of his defence.
Bayross was examined by the Board in London on September 29, 1959 after companyies of the earlier statements of the witnesses and other papers had been supplied to the appellant on September 21, 1959.
Eventually there being delay, the amount of such damages was quantified at a figure in the neighbourhood of 45,000/ .
Time for filing the written defence by the appellant was extended.
The judgment if the single Judge was set aside and the order of dismissal passed against the appellant by the Government was maintained holding that there was numberviolation of the principles of natural justice in any manner.
He directed Gottwald to furnish some tentative proof in support of his accusation against Sarin.
He accordingly made a recommendation to that effect to the Government of India.
CHARGE II.
