# IL R • .OEB v. COLLECTOR OF CENfRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG Ap(il 7, 1971

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 375
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 612 of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri C. J, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/il-r-oeb-v-collector-of-cenfral-excise-shillong-ap-il-7-1971-5255
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Service Ru/ts-Central Civil Services Classification-Control and Appeal Rules 1957-Ru/e lS contemplates only one inquiry-Inquiry Oflicer
can be asked to record further evidence-Disciplinary authority can rt•consider evidence itself and cotm to its own conclusion under r. 9.
The appellant was a sub-Inspector of Central Excise. A depanmental
inquiry was held against him in respect of a charge of misappropriation of
Government money. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him. The Collector
Central Excise, ordered another Inquiry Officer to make a report after
taking further evidence.
The second Inquiry Officer at first exonerated
the appellant but later, after taking some more evidence as directed by the
Collector, reported that although the charge against the appellant was not
proved hie conduct may not be above board. Dissatisfied with the raport
the Collector ordered a fresh inquiry to be held by a third officer. This
time a verdict of guilty was given and the appellant was dismissed. The
appellant's writ petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner
Tripura having failed be appealed to this Court by special leave. The
question for consideration was whether the multiple inquiries held againsf
the appellant were in accordance with r.
15 of the Classification and
Control Rules. Allowing the appeal,
HELD: Rule 15 on the face of it really provides for one inquiry but
it n1ay be poss.ible if in a particular case there has been no proper inquiry
because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important
witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined fl>T some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision
in
r. 1 S for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the
report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary A11thority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under r. 9. [379 HJ
Tb• rules do not contemplate an action such as taken by the Collector
in appointing a third Inquiry Officer. It seems that the Collector instead
of taking responsibility himself was determined to get some officer to report
against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only against the
rules but also harassing to the appellant. (380 BJ
Jn the result it must be held that no proper inquiry has been conducted in the case and, therefore, there has been a breach of Art. 311 (2) of
the Constitution.
(380 E]
CML APPELLATE
JURISDICl'ION : Civil Appeal No. 612 of
1967.
375
A
B
c
D
E
'
G
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
H
February 16, 1966 of the Judicial Commissioner Court, Tripura
in Writ Petition No. 12 of 1962.
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
M. R. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant.
B
D
I'
G
H
0. P. Malhotra, Ram Panjwanl and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.

## Text

IL R • .OEB
v.
COLLECTOR OF CENfRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG
Ap(il 7, 1971.
[S. M. SIKRI C. J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Service Ru/ts-Central Civil Services Classification-Control and Appeal Rules 1957-Ru/e lS contemplates only one inquiry-Inquiry Oflicer
can be asked to record further evidence-Disciplinary authority can rt•consider evidence itself and cotm to its own conclusion under r. 9.
The appellant was a sub-Inspector of Central Excise. A depanmental
inquiry was held against him in respect of a charge of misappropriation of
Government money. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him. The Collector
Central Excise, ordered another Inquiry Officer to make a report after
taking further evidence.
The second Inquiry Officer at first exonerated
the appellant but later, after taking some more evidence as directed by the
Collector, reported that although the charge against the appellant was not
proved hie conduct may not be above board. Dissatisfied with the raport
the Collector ordered a fresh inquiry to be held by a third officer. This
time a verdict of guilty was given and the appellant was dismissed. The
appellant's writ petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner
Tripura having failed be appealed to this Court by special leave. The
question for consideration was whether the multiple inquiries held againsf
the appellant were in accordance with r.
15 of the Classification and
Control Rules. Allowing the appeal,
HELD: Rule 15 on the face of it really provides for one inquiry but
it n1ay be poss.ible if in a particular case there has been no proper inquiry
because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important
witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined fl>T some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision
in
r. 1 S for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the
report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary A11thority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under r. 9. [379 HJ
Tb• rules do not contemplate an action such as taken by the Collector
in appointing a third Inquiry Officer. It seems that the Collector instead
of taking responsibility himself was determined to get some officer to report
against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only against the
rules but also harassing to the appellant. (380 BJ
Jn the result it must be held that no proper inquiry has been conducted in the case and, therefore, there has been a breach of Art. 311 (2) of
the Constitution.
(380 E]
CML APPELLATE
JURISDICl'ION : Civil Appeal No. 612 of
1967.
375
A
B
c
D
E
'
G
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
H
February 16, 1966 of the Judicial Commissioner Court, Tripura
in Writ Petition No. 12 of 1962.
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
M. R. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant.
B
D
I'
G
H
0. P. Malhotra, Ram Panjwanl and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, C.J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Tripura and Agartala dismissing the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by
the appellant, K. R. Deb.
The relevant facts are these : The appellant was appointed as
a Sub Inspector of Central Excise in a temporary vacancy on September 20, 1958 and he reported for duty on October 15, 1958. On
May 30, 1959 he was alleged to have detained five maunds of onion
from the house of one Sayed Ahmad at Ramendranagar. It is further alleged that one Siddique Ahmad handed over a sum of Rs. 100
to the appellant, through one Harendra Kumar Dutta, on May 31,
1959, but the appellant did not mention the realisation of this
amount in his seizure report.
The following charge was framed against the appellent by Shri
R. C. Mehra, Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs, Shillong:
"That Shri K. R. Deb, Sub-Inspector, was found guilty
for concealing the fact of realisation of Rs. 100 from Shri
Siddique Ahmed on 31-5-1959 and not reporting the
mlitter in the seizure report or in his diary and th.us
misappropriated Govt. money of Rs. 100."
The allegations regarding this charge were supplied to the appellant.
The appellant applied for copies of certain documents on
December 28, 1960. On March 30, 1961 he submitted his written
statement of defence. In this written statement the appellant denied the charge. The Collector, by his letter dated May 11, 1961,
appointed Sbri B. P. Barua, Examiner of Accounts, Central Excise
and Land Customs, as Inquiry Officer Shri Barua held an inquiry
and submitted a report, dated July 3, 1961, holding that the charge
framed against the appellant was not proved. The Inquiry Officer
concluded :
"There is no conclusive evidence to establish the charge
of misappropriation of Govt. money. It is only established that the goods (5 mds. of onions) were seized from
the house of Sri Siddiq~ l\hmed but in his diary and
seizure report Sri K. R. Deb concealed the fact and seizure was shown to have been ma!le on border, 1be
charge does not include such concealment of fact"
DEB v. COLJ,JlCl'OR (Sikri, C.J.)
By order dated August 22, 1961, the Collector, Shri R. C.
Mehra, appointed Shri R. K. P. Sinha. Superintendent, Central
Excise & Land Customs, as Inquiry Officer to conduct a supple-
:me~tary open inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings instituted
:agamst the appellant The reason for conducting this inquiry is
:stated in order tbqs :
"Shri Jl. P. Barua, Examiner of Accounts, Customs &
Central Excise, was previously appointed Inquiry Officer
in this case, but he had not recorded an evidence of the
prosecution witnesses viz., SI Shri Harendra Kr. Dutta,
Jagabandhu Patwari, Syed Ahmed and Siddique Ahmed
during the COl!l'S8 of open enquiry."
In his report dated October 12. 1961. the Inquiry Officer
reported that "there is nothing on record to prove · the alleged
acceptance of Rs. 100 bY Sbri K. R. Deb, Sub-Inspector." In
his report he stated that Shri Harendra Kumar Datta did
not appear in the Inquiry though he acknowledged the receipt of
summons issued to him. It appeared to the Inquiry Officer that Shri
Dutta was not willing to attend the inquiry. In the course of the
report he observed:
"Thus the entire story of handing over the money to
Sri Harendra Kumar Dutta in the presence of the SubInspector on 3 l-S-59 topples down. It is also evident
that the Sub·Inspector could not have
demanded the
money on 30.5-1959 as the seizure it appears was made
in the absence of Shri Siddique Ahmed. The whole episode, it appears, therefore, is a cooked up and fabricated
to implicate the sub-lnspr. for the seizure he effected."
After this report one would have thought that the Collector
would make up his mind, but instead the Collector wrote on Dec.
20, 1961, to Shri R. K. P. Sinha, complaining that the report submitted by him had been found to be very sketchy and that he had
failed to appreciate the importance of the evidence of Harendra
Kumar Dutta, a prosecution witness in the case. The Collector
further obliCfVed that "in case he had fa'iled to r~pond to the suar
moll. you would have takeμ steps to send somebody at his house."
He pointed out sonie further defects aμd drew the attention of
the Inquiry Officer to the stalenlent of Sepoy Monoranjan wl!ere
from it appeared witho11t any ·shadow of· doubt that a sum of
Rs. 100 was given to Shri K. R. Deb in the presenee of this sepoy.
The Collector further observed that "in the face of overwhelming
evidence regardins thiS allegation of corruption, it is difficult to
minimise the importance of th8 witnoues." The Collector then proceeded to direct. the Inquiry Officu to examine Harendra Kumar
iDutta, Jagabandha P&twari nad Sepoy Monmajan Ghosh witliout
317
B
c
D
E
Ji'
H
378
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPRElllE COURT REPORTS
(1971] SUPP. S.C R.
further delay, and to submit the final repori before January
10, 1962.
The Inquiry Officer in his report dated January 20, 1962, stated:
"From the various statements g'iven to me in my enquiry
dated 20-9-61, 4-1-62 and 12-1-62, it may kindly be seen
that no conclusive proof is forthcoming to establish
the charge of acceptance of money (Rs. 100) by Sri K. R.
Deb. But in view of the previous enquiry and statements
given by witnesses, evading reply of Sri Dutta, the conduct of Shri K. R. Deb may not be above board."
On February 13, 1962 the Collector passed the following.
order:
"In supersession of this office letter 0. No. II(IO) All/
Con/60 and 0. No. HOO) A/3/Con/61, dated 12-5-1961
and 22-8-61 respectively, the undersigned considers that
another Inquiry Officer should be appointed to inquire
afresh into the
charge framed
against Sarbasri
K. R. Deb, Sub-Inspector of Central Excise, · Shillong
Collectorate.
Now therefore the undersigned in exercise of the
powers conferred by rule 15(4) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.)
Rules 1957 hereby appoints Shri K. P. Patnaik, Examiner
of Accounts, Customs and Central Excise, Shillong as
an enquiry officer to inquire into the charges framed
against the said Sarbasri K. R. Deb."
On March 6, 1962, Shri Patnaik reported that it was proved
that "Shri K. R. Deb did not bring into account the sum of Rs. 100
realised on May 31, 1959 from Siddique Ahmad of Ramendranagar.
The amount has therefore been misappropriated. The charge of
misappropriation of Rs. JOO is therefore proved against Sri K. R.
Deb."
On March 15, 1962 a notice was issued to the appellant to
show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.
On
March 20, 1962 he filed an application giving the list of documents copies of which he wanted. He gave his explanation on
May 21, 1962 and asked for personal hearing. On June 4, 1962,
he was dismissed from service and on June 14, 1962, he filed the
writ petition out of which this appeal arises.
A number of points have been raised before us but we need
only mention one point, viz .. that the Collector had no authority
to appoint Shri K. P. Patnaik to inquire into the charge after the:
Inquiry Officers had reported in bis favour. It was urged before·
us that such an inquiry is not contemplated by the Central Civir
DEB V. COLLECTOR (Sikri, C.J.)
379Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was
A
contended that rule 15 .of the Classification and Control Rules
did not contemplate successive inquiries, and at any rate, even
if it contemplated successive inquiries there was no provision for
setting aside earlier inquiries without giving any reason whatsoever. It was further contended that the order dated Februarv 13,
1962 was ma/a fide.
·
Rule 15(1) of the Classification and Control Rules reads as
follows:
"(I) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public
Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a
Government servant any of the penalties speeified in
clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 13 shall be passed except
after an inquiry, held as far as may be, in the manner
hereinafter provided."
Clause (2) of rule 15 provides for framing of charges and communication in writing to the government servant of these charges
with the statement of allegations on which they are based, and
it also provides for a written statement of defence. Under cl. (3)
the government servant is entitled to inspect and take extracts
from such official records as he may specify, subject to certain
exceptions.
Under clause (4) on receipt of the written statement
of defence the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into
such. of the charges as are not admitted, or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer
for the purpose. Clause (7) provides that at the conclusion of
the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the
inqDiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together
with reasons therefor. If in the opinion of such authority the
proceedings Qf the inquiry establish charges different from those
originally framed it may record findings on such charges provided
that findings on such charges shall not be recorded
unless the
Government servant has admitted the facts constituting them or
has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. Under
cl. (9) "the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring
Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its find·
ings on each charge." Clause (10) provides for issue of showca use notice.
It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides
for one lnquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there
has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept
into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available
at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other
reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to
record further evidence. But there is no provision in rule 15 for
c
D
E
F
G
H
380
A
B
.D
E
SUPREME.COURT ~EPO~TS
[1971) SUPP. S.C.R.
completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that
the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to
the Disciplinary Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority has
enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its
own conclusion under rule 9.
In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as
was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to
us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was
determined to get some officer to report against the appellant.
The procedur.e adopted was not only not warranted by the rules
but was harassing to the appellant.
·
Before the Judicial Commissioner the point was put slightly
differently and it was urged that the proceedings showed that the
Disciplin11ry Authority had made up its mind to dismiss the appel·
!ant. The Judicial Commissioner held that on ihe facts it could
not be said that the Disciplinary Authority was prejudiced against
t!ie appellant. )Jut it seems to us that on the material on record
a S\!Spicjop does arise that the Collector was determined to get
some ~nguiry Ollicer to report against the appellant.
In the r~sult we hold that no proper inquiry has been COJl.·
ducted in the case iind, therefore, there hiis been a breach of art.
311(2) of the Constitμtion.
The appeal is accordingly allowed
and the ord.er dated June 4, 1962 quashed, and it is declared that
tile 11ppeUan1 should be treated as still continuing in service. He
should be paid his pay and allowances for the period he has been
out of office. The appellant will have his costs here and in the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner.
Fees shall be payable by
the appellant to his advocate and be allowed on taxation.
G.C.
4.ppecrl ·allowed.