TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (4) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red from Sasaram to Buxer as an Election Clerk. On September 16, 1954, the Sub- Divisional Officer, B Sasaram, summoned the appellant and asked him to explain the outstanding fine of Case No. 886- C/104 T.R. of 1950 (The State v. Sarju Chaubbe & Ors.), decided by Shri R. Singh, Magistrate, Sasaram, on April 26, 1950. Three Money Order coupons, two for ₹ 500/- each and one for ₹ 68/-, were sent by the Police Sub-Inspector of Kargahar to the C Magistrate, Shri R. Singh. These amounts represented the fine recovered from the persons who were convicted in the aforesaid case. The appellant was confronted with those Money Order coupons which purported to bear the initials of the appellant, and was asked to trace if the money had been credited to the Government. The appellant inspected the records and found an entry in the Fine Register of the D Court relating to the year 1951 which was to the effect, that an appeal arising out of the case, in question, had been allowed and the fine remitted. 'The appellant brought that entry to the notice of the then Magistrate, Shri M. P. Singh, and submitted a written report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, stating that the initials on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Case No. GR 886/TR 104 on 4-9-50 to the Court of Shri R. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, of whom he was the Bench Clerk. (2) Issuing an incorrect extract of order of of 1950 to Sliri Triloki Prasad, the then Fine Clerk, and conspiring with Shri Triloki Prasad and misappropriating ₹ 1,068/- sent by the S.I. of Police, Kargabar on 4-9-50". The inquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram who, after concluding it, submitted his report to the District Magistrate, Sasaram, who was the authority competent to appoint and remove the appellant from service. The District Magistrate, ultimately, by his order, dated March 19, 1950, held: "The conduct of Shri Nand Kishore Prasad is highly suspicious but for insufficient evidence proceeding against him has to be dropped". This order of the District Magistrate was communicated to the appellant as per Memo. No. 278, dated April 19, 1960. More than two months thereafter, a letter, dated June 29, 1960, was sent by the P.A. to the Commissioner of Patna Division, calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. To this "show- cause" letter, the appellant su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order passed by the Commissioner. This order of the Board of Revenue was communicated to him on February 14, 1964. On September 23, 1964, the appellant moved the High Court at Patna by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging his removal from service. The learned Judges of the High Court while observing that the Commissioner's Order was somewhat cryptic and did not make a specific and pointed reference to the evidence against the writ petitioner, noted that the Commissioner had drawn his conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner "from the fact that the petitioner was in actual charge of the fine record and it was his duty to take necessary action for realization of the fine until due payment thereof". The H High Court further observed that "the mere fact that the Commissioner has not discussed in detail the circumstantial evidence against the petitioner, was not a sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned order, because this aspect has been more elaborately referred to in the impugned order of the Board of Revenue. The High Court concluded that since there was some evidence- albeit not sufficient for conviction in t crimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nquent on the same charge at a criminal trial. The contentions in the instant case resolve into the narrow issue : Whether the impugned orders do not rest on any evidence whatever,' but merely on suspicions, conjectures and surmises. A conjoint reading and analysis of the impugned orders of the Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue would show that they purport to rest on these primary facts :- (a) That fine amounting to ₹ 1,068/- was realised by the Police and sent to the Court of the Magistrate, Sasaram, by money orders, where it was received on September 4, 1950. (b) When this fine was imposed, and the aforesaid money orders. were received, the appellant (Nand Kishore Prasad) was the Bench Clerk of the Magistrate. The fine records were with Nand Kishore Prasad and it was he who used to issue distress warrants for realisation of outstanding fine. But after 4-9-1950, he did not take further action for recovery of the fine in question, or for ensuring that the convicts suffered imprisonment in default of payment of fine inflicted on them by the Court. (c) A "receipt" (money order coupon) has been produced "indicating that the petitioner (Nand Kis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esirability of writing a self-contained speaking order in disciplinary proceeding culminating in an order of removal of the delinquent from service, cannot be over- emphasised. It is true that the impugned orders do not fully measure upto this devoutly desired standard. Nevertheless, they do contain a bald and general allusion to the primary facts, and a cryptic inference therefrom. There is no specific reference to or discussion of the evidence. The High Court, therefore, examined the record of the disciplinary tribunal, not with a view to make out or reconstruct a new case, but only to see whether there was some evidence of the primary facts relied upon by the domestic tribunal in support of its conclusion. We do not see any impropriety in the course adopted by the High Court. On examination of the Tribunal's record, 'he High Court found that there was oral and documentary evidence before the disciplinary tribunal; that at all times material to the imposition, realisation and receipt of the fine amounts in question, all the fine record,; in the Court of the Magistrate, Sasaram, used to remain. with the Bench Clerk, i.e., the appellant. The Inquiry Officer had examined thr....