TMI Blog1971 (10) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls. 4. On June 14, 1956, one Shri Nand Kumar representing Messrs Ram Sarup Mam Chand and Messrs Mam Chand and Company of Calcutta applied for five licences to set up steel re-rolling mills. He also handed over on June 25, 1956 to the respondent a cheque for ₹ 2,500/-drawn on the Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited in favour of Shri P. S. Sundaram. The cheque was certified by the bank as good for payment upto September 24, 1956. At the back of the cheque, there was a signature which purported to be that of Shri P. S. Sundaram. It may be noted at this stage that Shri P. S. Sundaram, the Deputy Secretary had denied the signature to be his. Above the signature the respondent wrote the words :- Please pay to Shri Sardar Bahadur.' Lower down the respondent wrote the following words : Please collect and credit the amount into my account. First payee's endorsement may kindly be guaranteed on my behalf and risk. 5. This cheque was duly cent to the account of the respondent and the amount of ₹ 2,500/-was credited to his account in the State Bank of India, New Delhi. 6. The respondent was prosecuted by the Special Police Establishment on the allegations that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retary, Ministry of External Affairs, exercising the powers of the President. He found that all the charges had been proved. The President after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission passed an order on April 22, 1968 holding that the charge of gross misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as a Government servant had been substantially proved against the respondent and imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on him. The respondent was directed to be retired from service with immediate effect. 9. It was this order which was quashed by the Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Letters Patent Appeal against the order filed by the Union of India before the Division Bench was dismissed. 10. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Inquiry Officer went wrong in finding that charges Nos. 1 2 had not been proved and that the President was right in holding that these charges had been proved and therefore the High Court should have found that charges Nos. 1 2 were proved, as there was evidence to support the charges. It was contended that the Inquiring Officer wrongly rejected the copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently achieved, when a witness who has given a prior statement is recalled, that statement is put to him, and made known to the opposite party, and the witness is tendered for cross-examination by that party. As the persons whose statements were sought to be relied on were in Delhi and as they were not produced and tendered for cross-examination by the respondent, we think that the Inquiring Officer was right in refusing to act upon the statements relied on by the appellant. As there was no material before the Inquiring Officer to show that P. S. Sundaram mentioned in the cheque is P. S. Sundaram, the Deputy Secretary, we think the High Court was justified in holding that these charges had not been proved. 13. Coming to charge No. 3 the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench said that although there was great deal of suspicion on the bona fides of the transaction in the respondent borrowing money from Nand Kumar, suspicion cannot take the place of proof. They, therefore, held that the charge has not been proved. The third charge, as already stated, was that the respondent borrowed ₹ 2,500/-from Nand Kumar without obtaining the previous permission of the Government and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk or a firm of standing. The second part of the sub-rule forbids him from borrowing money from any other person with whom he is likely to have official dealings. The appellant at no time had a case that the respondent contravened the first part of the sub-rule in borrowing the amount from Nand Kumar. So, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench had occasion to consider the application of the first part of the sub-rule to the facts of the case. Even in the Special Leave Petition the appellant did not rely on the first part of the sub-rule. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to consider the scope of the first part of the sub-rule or its application to the case here. 16. A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials if it is a reasonable inference from proved facts. Now what are the proved facts : Nand Kumar as representative of M/s. Ram Sarup Mam Chand and M/s. Mam Chand and Company of Calcutta filed five applications for licences to set up steel re-rolling mills on 14-6-1956. On 25-6-56, a cheque drawn in favour of P. S. Sundaram was given to the respondent by Nand Kumar for ₹ 2,500/-; the cheque was endorsed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was whether the proved facts of the case would warrant such an inference. Tested in the light of the standard of proof necessary to enter a finding of this nature, we are satisfied that on the material facts proved the inference and the implied finding that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent were reasonable. 17. The Division Bench said that the conclusion of the Single Judge that there was no evidence before the Inquiring Officer that Nand Kumar was likely to have official dealings with the non-dent was not wholly un-warranted, and as there are limits to the powers exercised by a Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution, there are limits to the powers of a Division Bench while sitting in appeal over the judgment of a Single Judge. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was in the circumstances of the proved facts in the case a reasonable one, we do not think there was anything which prevented the Division Bench from interfering with the order of the Single Judge. In Jugal Kishore Bhadani v. Union of India AIR1965Pat196 , the Court observed :- It is well established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
