TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (4) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se: 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 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. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plinary proceedings instituted ,against the appellant. The reason for conducting this inquiry is stated in order thus: "Shri B. 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., 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 Rs. 100 by Shri K. R. Deb, Sub- Inspector." In his report he stated that Shri Harendra Kumar Datta did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Collector further observed that "in the face of overwhelming .evidence regarding this allegation of corruption, it is difficult to minimise the importance of the witnesses." The Collector then proceeded to direct the Inquiry Officer to examine Harendra Kumar Dutta, Jagabandha Patwari had 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une 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 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 witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 bad 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 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 witness....