# T. Devadasan v. The Union <Jf India and Another

- **Citation:** [1964] 4 S.C.R. 708
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963-08-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 1961
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, K. C. Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-devadasan-v-the-union-jf-india-and-another-3184
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Sea Customs-Seizure of Gold-furisdictian of" Custom; 'Officer-"Adjoining", meaning of-Proof. ~·.of ·mens ·rea-Sea · Customs
Act,·1878 (8 of 1878), ss. 167(81), 178-A-Land Customs Act, 1924
(19 of 1924), els. (e)(g), of"· 2, 3~.Central Excises Rules, ,1944,
r. 2(ii)(A)(i).
.
The appellant was found carrying 286 tolas of gold in running
train between Kerla and P-ali stations .by th~ Sub Inspe~tor of Barmer District: After the go1d was seized, crir~inal prOceedings were
instiNied against the 'appellant. The tri?l collrt acquitted the· appellant but the High ·Court convitted him. ·The appellan~'s case
in this Court .was that.·the· seizure .9£ the gold from -him had
not been proved; that the Sub-Inspector was not
·a~ :CU§toms
Officer for the place where the seizure was made,
and so the
-
4-S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
7(J)
seizure was not under the Land Customs Act ; and that, in any
view of the case, the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary
mens rea in the appellant.
Section 3 of the Land Customs Act authorises the Central
Government to appoint by notification one person to be the Collector of Land Customs for any area adjoining a foreign frontier
and specified in the notification.
The section also authorises the
Central Government to appoint such other persons as it thinks fit
to be customs officer for the same area by a similar notification. The
relevant notification issued was as follows:-
" 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
section 3 of the Land Customs Act 1924 (19 of 1924) read
with the notification of the Government of India -in the late
Finance Deptt.
(Central Revenues) No. 5444,
dated !st
December 1924, the Central Board of Revenue hereby appoints
for the areas adjoining, the Land Customs Frontier separatiq.g
West Pakistan from India, the officers of the Government of
Rajasthan specified in the Schedule hereto annexed, to be land
Customs Officers within the jurisdiction of the Collector of
Land Customs Delhi."
"The Schedule."
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"All officers of the Rajasthan Civil Police and the Rajasthan
Armed Constabulary of and above the rank of Head Constable
posted in the Districts of Barmer, Bikancr, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer and Jalore in the State of Rajasthan."
Held, that tlie word "adjoining'' in the above notification means
the whole compact block consisting of the State of Punjab, Jammu
and Kashmir and Rajasthan and the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi as one area adjoining the West Pakistan
Frontier, and that for this entire area one person was appointed
the Collector of Land Customs. Every officer, therefore, mentioned
in the Schedule would be a Customs Officer not for any particular
District mentioned in the Schedule but for the whole area which
forms the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs Delhi.
Since in the instant case, the Sub-Inspector was an officer mentioned in the Schedule, he would be an officer for the entire area
which formed the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs
Delhi, including the place where the seizure was made and wa~
therefore, competent to make the seizure.
'
Held, further, that on the evidence the story of the recovery of gold from the appeilant was true, and that the circumstances, manner, quantity and the form in which gold was carried,
clearly . showed . that _the appellan_t was smuggling gold knowingly
and with the intention of evading the prohibition in force with
respect to the import of gold into the country.

## Text

1963
T. Devadasan
v.
The Union
<Jf India and
Another
Subba Rao /.
1963
August
•
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
These general observations made in the ·context of· admissions to college cannot, in my view, be applied in the case
of a reservation of appointments in ·the matter of recruitment to a cadre of particular service. The doctrine of
"destruction" of the fundamental right depends upon the·
entire cadre strength and the percentage reserved olit of
that strength. Further, the expression used in the observa·
tions, viz., "generally" and "broadly'', show that the· observations were intended only to be a workable guide but
not an inflexible rule of law even in the case of admis-·
sions to colleges.
I cannot, therefore, hold that in the present case the·
provision made by the State was not for reservation but for
a purpose not sanctioned by the Constitution. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.
ORDER BY COURT
In accordance with majority. opinion .. the Writ Petition is allowed with. costs .
. BUKMA
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.)
Sea Customs-Seizure of Gold-furisdictian of" Custom; 'Officer-"Adjoining", meaning of-Proof. ~·.of ·mens ·rea-Sea · Customs
Act,·1878 (8 of 1878), ss. 167(81), 178-A-Land Customs Act, 1924
(19 of 1924), els. (e)(g), of"· 2, 3~.Central Excises Rules, ,1944,
r. 2(ii)(A)(i).
.
The appellant was found carrying 286 tolas of gold in running
train between Kerla and P-ali stations .by th~ Sub Inspe~tor of Barmer District: After the go1d was seized, crir~inal prOceedings were
instiNied against the 'appellant. The tri?l collrt acquitted the· appellant but the High ·Court convitted him. ·The appellan~'s case
in this Court .was that.·the· seizure .9£ the gold from -him had
not been proved; that the Sub-Inspector was not
·a~ :CU§toms
Officer for the place where the seizure was made,
and so the
-
4-S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
7(J)
seizure was not under the Land Customs Act ; and that, in any
view of the case, the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary
mens rea in the appellant.
Section 3 of the Land Customs Act authorises the Central
Government to appoint by notification one person to be the Collector of Land Customs for any area adjoining a foreign frontier
and specified in the notification.
The section also authorises the
Central Government to appoint such other persons as it thinks fit
to be customs officer for the same area by a similar notification. The
relevant notification issued was as follows:-
" 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of
section 3 of the Land Customs Act 1924 (19 of 1924) read
with the notification of the Government of India -in the late
Finance Deptt.
(Central Revenues) No. 5444,
dated !st
December 1924, the Central Board of Revenue hereby appoints
for the areas adjoining, the Land Customs Frontier separatiq.g
West Pakistan from India, the officers of the Government of
Rajasthan specified in the Schedule hereto annexed, to be land
Customs Officers within the jurisdiction of the Collector of
Land Customs Delhi."
"The Schedule."
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"All officers of the Rajasthan Civil Police and the Rajasthan
Armed Constabulary of and above the rank of Head Constable
posted in the Districts of Barmer, Bikancr, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer and Jalore in the State of Rajasthan."
Held, that tlie word "adjoining'' in the above notification means
the whole compact block consisting of the State of Punjab, Jammu
and Kashmir and Rajasthan and the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi as one area adjoining the West Pakistan
Frontier, and that for this entire area one person was appointed
the Collector of Land Customs. Every officer, therefore, mentioned
in the Schedule would be a Customs Officer not for any particular
District mentioned in the Schedule but for the whole area which
forms the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs Delhi.
Since in the instant case, the Sub-Inspector was an officer mentioned in the Schedule, he would be an officer for the entire area
which formed the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs
Delhi, including the place where the seizure was made and wa~
therefore, competent to make the seizure.
'
Held, further, that on the evidence the story of the recovery of gold from the appeilant was true, and that the circumstances, manner, quantity and the form in which gold was carried,
clearly . showed . that _the appellan_t was smuggling gold knowingly
and with the intention of evading the prohibition in force with
respect to the import of gold into the country.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 152 of 1%2.
1963
Hukm11
...
St11te of
Raja<than.
1963
Hukma
v.
State of
Raiasthan.
Das Gupta, ].
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated April 4, 1%2 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B.
Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 1961.
·
_ ·
S. K. Kapur, S. Murthy, B. N. Kirpal and K. K. Jain,
for the appellant.
H. R. Khanna and RR. G. K. Achar for P. D. Menon,
for the respondent.
.
August 29, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DAs GuPTA J.-This appeal by special leave is against
a conviction and sentence under s. 167 (81) of the Sea
Customs Act, 1878. The appellant was acquitted by the
trial court, but on appeal by the State of Rajasthan, the
Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of acquittal and
convicted the appellant under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, and sentenced· him to· rigorous imprisonment
for one year. The prosecution case was that on receipt of
some information that gold smuggled from Pakistan was
being carried, Lal Singh, Sub-Inspector of the Check-post
of Barmer; followed the appellant into a. railway train at
Luni railway station, and in the running train between
the stations of Kerla .and Pali, searched appellant's person
and found. that he was carrying 286 tolas of gold in a
pouli under his trousers. ·In the reasonable belief that
these were. smuggled goods, Lal Singh seized the gold.
The gold that was seized consisted of six blocks bearing
marks "999", N. M .. Rothschild & · Sons, 22 bars bearing
marks '999', 3 small pieces of gold and one pair of murkies. Lal Singh seized the gold after preparing a seizure
list in the presence of witnesses and later produced the
appellant along with the gold before the Superintendent,
Land Customs, Barmer. By an order of the Collector of
Customs, New Delhi, dated July 19, 1957, this gold was confiscated and a fine of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the appellant. Criminal proceedings were afterwards instituted
against the appellant on the allegation that he had committed an offence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act.
The prosecution claimed that under s. 178-A of the Sea
Customs Act, the burden of proving that gold was not
smuggled lay on the accused. Even apart from that, the
prosecution claimed, it was clear that the gold had been
smuggled. It was alleged that the appellant had carried
-
r
-
-
4 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
711
the gold knowingly with interit to evade the regulations
prohibiting the import of gold into India.
The main defence of the accused, who pleaded not
guilty, was that no gold was recovered .from him. The
trial court held that the prosecution had failed to establish
the recovery of gold from the accused. It further accepted
the defence contention that Lal Singh had no authority
to search the appellant and seize the gold at the place
where the seizure was alleged to have been made.
According · to the learned Magistrate, the seizure, if any,
had not been made under the Land Customs Act and so
had not been inade under "the Act" within the meaning
of s. 178-A, and there was no question of the accused having
to prove that the gold was not smuggled. On the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, he was not convinced that it
was smuggled gold. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused.
The High Court came to contrary findings on all these
points. It held that the evidence of Lal Singh as regards the
seizure should be believed and that the seizure of the
gold from the accused had been proved satisfactorily.
It was also of the opinion that Lal Singh had . authority to seize the gold at the place where the seizure was
made, and that s. 178-A of the Sea Customs Act applied.
In the opinion of the High Court, the accused had failed
to prove that the gold was not smuggled and that under
the provisions of s. 178-A as also on the evidence in the
case, the gold had been established to be smuggled gold.
All the ingredients of the offence, according to the High
Court, had been proved, and therefore, the accused was
convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
.
Three points were raised before us by Mr. S. K. Kapur
m support of the appeal. The first was that the High
Court was not justified in disturbing the trial court's finding that the seizure of the gold from the accused had not
been proved.
Th~ second point urged was that the High
Court had fallen mto an error in thinking that Lal Singh
h~d authority to seize the gold at the place where the
setZure w~s made. The third contention was that in any
case even if s. 178-A applied and it was found that the gold
was smuggled, the prosecution had failed to prove the
neces~ary mens rea in the accused that was necessary to
constitute the offence.
l·
1963
Huk_ma
v.
State of
Raiasthan.
Das Gupta, /.
1963
_Hukma
v.
State .of
. Rajasthan.
!(as Gupta, f.
•
712
··SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
On the question of seizure of gold .from the accused,
the prosecution relied on the testimony of Lal Singh himself. Lal Singh gave a detailed a_ccount as to how he
followed the accused into the train at Luni station and in
the running train conducted the search. of .his person in
the presence of witnesses and recovered from his possession
from a pouli tied beneath his trou_sers the gold identified in court as Ex. P.M. 1-32. The seizure Memo. which
he claimed to have prepared at the time of the seizure
was marked Exh. P. 3. This document mentions the
names of three persons as search witnesses. None of these
was examined by the prosecution. The third name mentioned in Exh. P. 3 is Pukh Raj son of Awasthi Mal, aged
about 22 years, resident of Ajit. The defence examined
a Pukh Raj who gave his father's name as Basti Mal and
who was resident of Ajit, and stated that he was the only
Pukh Raj in that village. The High Court seems to have
doubted the indentity of Pukh Raj examined as defence
witness as the · Pukh Raj mentioned in the seizure list.
This finding has been attacked by
Mr.. Kapur as unjustified.
Whether or not the Pukh Raj examined as
defence witness is the same as the person whose name is
mentioned in the seizure list, is not, however, of much
consequence; for the fact remains that the prosecution has
not got the evidence of any of the witnesses in whose
presence the search and seizure are said to have been
made, to support Lal Singh' s evidence.
The
learned
Magistrate gave this failure of the prosecution to examine
the witnesses as the main reason for his inability to accept
Lal Singh's testimony .. The High Court has accepted Lal
Singh's
testimony, but unfortunately the
judgment
does not indicate that the learned Judges of the
High Court took into consideration this fact that the search
witnesses had not been examined.
We have, therefore,
thought it necessary to examine the evidence for ourselves
to see whether the seizure as alleged by the prosecution
has been proved. Lal Singh' s evidence on the point has
already been mentioned. It has to be noticed that the
defence witness No. 2, Poonam Chand, .. has also -spoken
about th~ search. His evidence is that police conducted
. se~rch in the compartment when the train was enroute
from Luni to Pali, and that "the police took .search of the
-
r
1
•. -
4 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
713
accused H uk.ma present before the court and of two or
three more persons named Kesrimal and Tarachand".
The witness added no gold was recovered from the po~
session of the accused Hukma Ram, but admitted that
in the same compartment a purse was recovered.
It
has to be noticed that when Lal Singh was examined,
no suggestion was made to him in
cross-examination
that any other person had been searched in the compartment. It is not unreasonable to think., therefore, tbat
when Poonam Chand is speaking of search in tbe compartment of Hukma and the find of a purse there though
stopping short of saying what was recovered from it, his
evidence unwittingly supports the story given by Lal
Singh about the search and the recovery of tbe gold. It
does not stand to reason tbat if two other persons had been
searched and gold had been found within one of them,
this appellant, a pointsman in the Railway, should be falsely
implicated and the person from whom the recovery of
gold was made, should have been allowed
to
escape.
The accused suggested in his statement that Lal Singh
was inimically disposed towards him because on one
occasion Lal Singh had asked him to serve water and
he had not done it at once. There was no suggestion
about this incident to Lal Singh in his cross-examination, and we are convinced that this is entirely false.
On a consideration of Lal Singh's evidence along with
the evidence of appellant's own witness, Poonam Chand
we are convinced that the story of recovery of gold
from the accused is true. The reason why the three witnesses mentioned in the seizure list have not come forward
to support the prosecution case is, in our poinion, not. that
the story of search and seizure as given by Lal Singh i~
not true, but that these witnesses have been gained over.
This brings us to Mr. Kapur's main contention, namely,
that Lal Singh was not a Customs Officer for the place
where the seizure was made, and so the seizure was not
under the Land Customs Act, taken with the provisions of
the Sea Customs Act.
The answer to this contention
depends on the construction of the notification appointing Customs Officers for the areas adjoning the frontier between West Pakistan and India.
The notification as it stands after an amendment in 1956, runs
16-2 S. C. Ind;af64
1963
Hukma
Y.
Slltte of
R•i1Sthan.
Dss Gu/Ila, f.
1963
Hukma
.. ~
St•te of
Rajasthan.
Das Gupta, ].
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
as follows:-
" 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section
( 1) of section 3 of the Land Customs Act 1924 ( 19 of
1924) read with the notification of the Government of
India in the late Finance Deptt. (Central Revenues)
No. 5444, dated 1st December 1924, the Central Board
of Revenue hereby appoints for the areas adjoining the
Land Customs Frontiers separating West Pakistan from
India, the officers of the Government of Rajasthan
specified in the schedule hereto annexed, to be Land
Customs Officers within the jurisdiction of the Colkctor of Land Customs Delhi."
"The Schedule."
"
"
*
"
*
*
"All officers of the Rajasthan Civil Police and the
Rajasthan Armed Constabulary of and above the rank
of Head Constable posted in the Districts of Barmer,
Bikaner, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer and Jalore in the State
of Rajasthan."
.
Asking us to give a restricted meaning to the word
"adjoining" in the notification, Mr. Kapur has suggested
that this notification gave authority to the Customs Officers
only for the areas within a few miles from the border. He
contended next that even if this be not accepted, the notification on a reasonable interpretation gave authority only
to the officers of the Districts mentioned in the Schedule
to function as Customs Officers in those Districts and
nowhere else. The trial court appears to have accepted this
construction, ahd ·as admittedly the place of seizure was
not in any of the District mentioned in the Schedule, it
held· that Lal Singh was not authorized to search the accused or to seize the gold. The High Court, on the contrary, has taken the view that each of the officers mentioned in the Schedule has been apointed a Customs Officer for
the entire area which has "jurisdiction of the Collector of
Land Customs, Delhi".
In our opinion, this is the correct and only possible
construction. Section 3 of the Land Customs Act authorizes the Central Government to appoint by notification in
~he official gazette one person to be the Collector of Land
Customs for any area adjoining a foreign frontier and
ipecified in the notification. The section also authorizes
rr
.....
1
--,
4 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
715
the Central Government to appoint by a similar notification such other persons as it thinks fit to be Customs
Officers for the same area. "Foreign frontier" has been
defined in s. 2, cl. ( e) of the Act as the frontier separating
any foreign territory from any part of India. "Land Customs area" has been defined in cl. (g) of the same section
as any area adjoining a foreign frontier for which a Collector of Land Customs has been appointed under s. 3.
From the definition of foreign frontier in cl. ( e), it is clear
that an area adjoining the frontiers separating any foreign
territory from any part of India, is within these words.
What, then is meant by the word 'adjoining'? According
to Mr. Kapur, only a few miles near the frontier can be
considered to be adjoining the frontier. We can see no
justification for such a restricted construction of the word
"adjoining". It is true that the village next to the frontier
adjoins the frontier. It is equally correct, however, to describe the entire District nearest the frontier as adjoining
the frontier ; and we can see nothing wrong in the entire
State of Rajasthan adjoining the West Pakistan Frontier.
It appears to us that the Central Government treated
the whole compact block consisting of the
State of
Punjab, State of Jammu & Kashmir and State of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh and Delhi as one area ad1ommg the West Pakistan frontier, and for this one
area it appointed a Collector of Land Customs.
This
appears clear from the order appointing the Collector of
Central Excise, Delhi, to be the Collector of Land Customs
(Notification No. 2L Customs, dated 25th January, 1958),
taken with Rule 2(ii) A (i) of the Central Excise Rules,
according to which Collector means "in the State of Punjab, J ammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan and in the Union
Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, the Collector
of Central Excise, Delhi". In other words, the jurisdiction
of the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, is not only over
Delhi, but also it ext~nds to the States of Punjab, Jammu &
Kashmir and Rajasthan and the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Dellii. It was for this entire area that
the collector of Central Excise, Delhi was appointed Collector of Land Customs. The resultant position, therefore,
is that for this entire area of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir,
Rajasthan, Himachal and Delhi, one person has been ap-
,,
1963
Hukma
v.
State of
Rajasthan.
Das Gupta, /.
1963
Hukma
v.
Stllte of
Rlljasthan.
Das Gupta, J.
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964}
pointed Collector of Customs. When, therefore, the Central
Government proceeded next to appoint Land Customs
Officers and stated that certain officers as specified in the
schedule were appointed Land Customs Officers "for the
areas adjoining the land customs frontiers separating West
Pakistan from India'', and added the words that they were
to be Land Customs Officers "within the jurisdiction of the
Collector of Land Customs, Ddhi," it appears to us to be
quite clear that every officer mentioned in the Schedule
would be a Customs Officer-not for any particular District
mentioned in the Schedule but for the whole areas which
forms the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs,
Delhi and is the area adjoining the West Pakistan frontier
for which a Collector of Land Customs has already been appointed under s. 3. W c find no justificaticm for reading
into the Schedule any indication of the area where the
officers will operate. The Schedule purports to mention the
different officers of different districts who arc appointed
Land Customs Officers-not for those particular Districts
but for the entire area. Any other reading of the words
used in the main body of the notification would be not only
against the plain meaning of the words used but is likely
to defeat the object for which Land Customs Officers are
appointed.
W c have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the
construction put by the High Court on the notification is
right, and Lal Singh, being an officer in the District of
Barmer which is mentioned in the Schedule, was an officer
for the entire area which formed the jurisdiction of the
Collector of Land Customs, Delhi, including the place
where the seizure was made, and was therefore competent
to make the seizure.
There remains for consideration the last point raised by
the learned· counsel, namely, that even if Lal Singh had
authority to seize at the place where the seizure was made
and s. 178-A of the Sea Customs Act. applied, the prosecution ha:d still to prove by further evidence that the accused
had the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence. Learned counsel rightly pointed that while s. 178-A has the result
of placing the burden of proof that the gold was not smug-
-
gled on the accused, it is of no assistance to the prose-
"· . -1
cution to prove that the accused was carrying the gold
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
717
. l
knowingly to evade the prohibition which was for the time
being in force with respect to the import of gold into
India. Once, however, it is found, as it must be found
in this case, in
consequence
of
the
provisions of
s. 178-A (the accused has not tried to discharge the
burden that lay on him that the gold was not smuggled) that he was carrying smuggled gold,
the circumstances under which the gold was discovered, the
manner in which he was carrying the gold, the considerable
quantity of the gold that was being carried and the form
in which gold was being carried, namely, blocks and bars
in which the major portion of the gold was found, all these
circumstances establish beyond a shadow of doubt that accused was carrying the gold knowingly and with the intention of evading the prohibition that was in force with
respect to the import of gold into the country. Mr. Kapur
tried to argue that when gold is carried by persons, they
often carry it in this manner in a pouli concealed under
trousers. That may well be so. Here, however, there is
:;m additional circumstance that a pointsman of the Railway, not expected to have so much gold in his possession,
was carryirig the gold which was, as already mentioned in
~ix bloks and 22 bars apart from some small pieces and
one pair of murkees. The total quantity was as much as
286 tolas ;md 11 annas, that is, about three kilograms. When
:ill these circumstances are taken together, it is not possi-
-
-{
ble to accept learned counsel's suggestion that he might
be carrying the gold innocently having purchased it from
somebody. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly
held that all the ingredients of the offence under s. 167 (81)
of the Sea Customs Act have been established. It may
be mentioned that it has not been disputed before us
that if we believe the story of the recovery of the gold
from the appellant, the circumstances are sufficient to establish that Lal Singh seized the gold in the reasonable belief
that these were smuggled goods.
In the view we have taken in this matter, it is unnecesary to consider the further argument raised by
Mr. H. R. Khanna, who apperaed for the State, that even
~-- > apart from s. 178-A, the guilt of, accused could be held
to be proved by the confession made by him before the
Deputy Superintendent, Land Customs, corroborated as it
1963
Hukma
v.
State of
Raiasthan.
Das Gupta, f.
1963
Hukma
v.
Stau of
Raiasthan.
Das Gupta, f.
1963
August 30
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
is by the recovery of the gold from him.
All the points raised in the appeal on behalf of the
appellant fail, and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
UNION OF INDIA
"·
H.C. GOEL
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W ANCHOO,
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Civil Service-Disciplinary proceedings-Enquiry-proposal by
enquiry officer, if binding on the Government-Order of dismissal
based on no evidence-Governrnent acting bona fide--Jurisd£ction
of the High Court to inte1"fere-Constitution of India, Arts. 226
and 311(1) & (2)-Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules. t'. 55.
On a complaint the appellant decided to hold a departmental
enquiry against the respondent, suspended him and served a notice
calling upon him to show cause \Vhy disciplinary action should not
be taken on the follo\ving charges; (i) Meeting the Deputy Director,
Administration, C.P.W.D., at his residence without necessary per- rmission, (ii) Voluntarily expressing regret at his not having brought
sweets from Calcutta for the Deputy Director's Children,
(iii) Offering a currency note which from size and colour appeared to be
a hundred rupee note as bribe \Vith the intention of presuading
Deputy Director; Shri Rajagopalan to support his representation
regarding his seniority to the U.P.S.C., (iv) violation of Rule 3
of the C. C. B. (Conduct Rules).
The respondent tendered his
explanation and on enquiry, the charges were not found proved.
The appellant considered the enquiry report and provisionally ca1ne
to the conclusion that the respondent should be dismissed and accordingly issued a second notice against him. The respondent submitted his explanation to this notice.
At that stage, his case was
referred to the Union Public Service Commission. The Con1mission
advised the appellant that none of the penalties could be inflicteU
on the respondent. The afV'Cllant considered the matter afresh and
'r< ,,..;
remitted it back to the commission to reconsider it again. The Commission, on re-exan1ining the matter adhered to its earlier views
-