TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 Ramendr anagar. It is further alleged that one Siddique Ahmad handed over a sum of Rs. I 00 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 appellant 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 ₹ 100 from Shri Siddique Ahmed on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accounts, Customs Central Excise, was previously appointed Inquiry Officer in this case, but he had not recorded an evidence of the prosecution witnesses viz., S/Shri Harendra Kr. Dutta, Jagabandhu Patwari, Syed, Ahmed and Siddique Ahmed during the course 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 ₹ 100 by Shri 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: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sepoy Monorajan Ghosh without further delay, and to submit the final report before January 10, 1962. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated January 20, 1962, stated: . From the various statements given 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 O. No. II(10) A/I/ Con/60 and 0. No. II(10) A/3/Con/61, dated 12- 5-1961 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in his favour. it was urged before us that such an inquiry is not contemplated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was 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 February 13, 1962 was mala fide. Rule 15(1) of the Classification and Control Rules reads as follows: (1) Without prejudice to the, provisions of; the Public Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry and record its findings on each charge. Clause (10) provides for issue of show-cause notice. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
