Case: H.C. Sarin Vs. Union of India

This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of Delhi under Article 133 (1) (a) & (b) of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to the 30th Constitution Amendment Act. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. It is to be decided mostly on facts. And since we are in agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court given in the Letters Patent appeal , we shall advert only to the necessary facts and the main points argued beforeH. C. Sarin-the appellant was employed in the Indian Railways as Senior Railway Inspector attached to the Office of the India Stores Department at London. He was in that job from the 6th August, 1954. The Government of India placed orders with various firms in the United Kingdom and the continent for supply of rolling stock and other materials for the Indian Railways. In December, 1956 the appellant was deputed to the Essen Area of West Germany as Senior Railway Inspector in which capacity he had to inspect and pass the goods in the first instance at the site. Although this work of inspection in West Germany was entrusted t o the German Federal Railway in January 1958, the appellant remained there associated with the work till April or May, 1958. In July, 1956 orders were placed with M/s Leo Gottwald and Company for supply of several breakdown cranes both for meter gauge and broad gauge railway tracks in India. This was a family concern of one Dr. Hans Dieter Gottwald. Prior to the appellants going to the Essen Area of West Germany, there were other Senior Railway Inspectors doing the work of inspection including one S. N. Hussain (since deceased) immediately preceding the appellant. One of the clauses in the contract with Gottwald was that he would be liable to pay liquidated damages in the specified sums if he made delay in the delivery of the crane s. Eventually there being delay, the amount of such damages was quantified at a figure in the neighbourhood of &45, 000/-.Dr. Gottwald carried on business of his firm at Dusseldorf in West Germany. He came to London on July 30, 1958 to discuss with Shri L. T. Madmani, Railway Advisor certain technical aspects of the cranes contract. A meeting took place in the morning wherein were present other officers including one Mr. Bayross. In the afternoon, Gottwald saw S. N. Hussain at the India Stores Department when the latter told the former that delay had occurred in the supplies of cranes and consequently the firm of contractors may have to pay liquidated damages. Upon this, Gottwald disclosed that Sarin was responsible for the delay, he had taken money by way of bribes from the firm and in such a situation the firm was not liable to pay any damages. Since the allegation made by Gottwald against Sarin was a serious one S. N. Hussain advised him to inform Madnani about it. He did accordingly. After some preliminary steps Gottwalds statement was recorded on September 8, 1958 at India Stores Department where he gave a detailed account of the allegedly corrupt practices of the appellant. Shri Shukla was the Director General of the India Stores Department at the relevant time. He directed Gottwald to furnish some tentative proof in support of his accusation against Sarin. Gottwalds second statement was recorded on October 2 1, 1958. One Shri M. A. Hussain, I. C. S. was the Deputy High Commissioner for India stationed in U. K. at the relevant time. On examining the papers and the statements of Dr. Gottwald given before the various officers of the India Stores Department the Deputy High Commissioner formed an opinion that prima facie the accusations against the appellant were such that required to be investigated in a departmental enquiry. He accordingly made a recommendation to that effect to the Government of India. The Government, however, directed a preliminary enquiry to be made by Shri N. S. Pandey, Financial Advisor to the Indian High Commission and then to start a departmental enquiry, if necessary. Accordingly, Pandey went to Gottwalds place in West Germany, made preliminary investigations and submitted a report dated January 19, 1959 finding a prima facie case made out against the delinquent government servant. At the instance of the Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, charges were served upon the appellant on April 7, 1959 along with two Annexures containing various details of the accusations made by Gottwald against him. The appellant was asked to indicate by April 15 the papers which he wanted to inspect and the papers the copies of which he required to enable him to enter his defence. He was asked to submit his written explanation by 30th of April, 1959. In the meantime he was placed under suspension.Shorn of details which w ere to be found in the Annexures the Charge-Sheet served on the appellant contained the following threeI.That Shri H. C. Sarin, while functioning as the Senior Railway Inspecting Officer in the India St ores Department, London, during the period between December, 1956 and May, 1958, demanded and obtained illegal gratification from the firm of Messrs. Leo Gottwald of Dussaldorf.CHARGE II.That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid, the said Shri H. C. Sarin violated Rule 10 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1956 in that he accepted an Opel Car from Messrs. Talbots of Achen as a gift.CHARGE III.That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid, the said Shri Sarin used his official influence for personalfor filing the written defence by the appellant was extended. It was filed on May 27, 1959. The appellant denied all the charges against him. The Board of Enquiry set up by the Government of India consisted of theShri M. A. Hussain, ICS, Deputy High Commissioner, Chairman.(2) Col. Hendricks, Deputy Director General (Inspection), I. S. D., London, Member.(3) Shri T. M. Duraiswamy, Deputy Director General, I. S. D., London,correspondence which passed between the appellant and the Board in connection with the departmental enquiry instituted against him is too voluminous to be referred to in this judgment. No useful return will be achieved by referring to the correspondence in any detail. Suffice it to say at this stage that the correspondence does indicate a calculated design and planned attempt on the part of the appellant to non-cooperate with the enquiry and an anxiety and earnestness on the part of the Board to proceed in the matter as fairly as possible in the circumstances of the case. The Board was obliged to go to Dusseldrof, hold an enquiry at the spot by examining as many as 21 witnesses there, some of whom had been cited by the appellant as his defence witnesses and to examine the relevant papers, documents and account books of the contractors firm. All this proceeded ex-parte between July 14 to July 17, 1959. The Board returned to London on July 19 and examined some witnesses there who had been cited as defence witnesses by the appellant. Almost the entire departmental enquiry had to be conducted ex-parte as the appellant would not participate in it even with a pair of tongs.The appellant had name d S/Shri Bhalla, Sharma, Johri and Sen, Railway officers in India as his defence witnesses. He was asked to examine them by quesionnaries as it was not possible to call them to London for the purpose of the enquiry. Nor was their evidence s o material as to necessitate their examination viva-voca before the Board. The appellant refused to cooperate and did not submit any questionnaire. The Board, thereupon, sent to all the four officers aforesaid copies of the charges leveled against the appellant and asked them to state if they had anything to say in relation to them. Bayross was examined by the Board in London on September 29, 1959 after copies of the earlier statements of the witnesses and other papers had bee n supplied to the appellant on September 21, 1959. The appellant was present on September 29 but did not actively participate in the enquiry, in that he did not take any part in it by cross-examiningBoard submitted its report to the Government of India on November 2, 1959 holding that charges I and III had been proved against the appellant and charge II had neither been proved nor disproved. The Government gave a show-cause notice on November 4, 1960 to the appellant asking him to show cause against his removal. He filed his reply on January 31, 1961. Later, however, the Government gave another show cause notice dated September 20, 1961 to the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. In October/November, 1961 the appellant filed three show cause explanations in writing. He made another representation to the Government on March 4, 1962 for holding a fresh enquiry which naturally was not acceded to. Eventually the appellant was dismissed from service by an order of the Government of India dated September 10, 1962. He filed a writ petition in the High Court on December 6, 1962 to challenge the order of dismissal on several grounds, in nut shell, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry. A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated August 3, 1964 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal without any further or consequential order. A Letters Patent appeal was filed by the Government which was disposed of by a Bench of the Delhi High Court on April 25, 1967. The judgment if the single Judge was set aside and the order of dismissal passed against the appellant by the Government was maintained holding that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in any manner. Since the amount of salary payable to the appellant if the dismissal order could be found to be bad would, indisputably have been more than Rs. 20, 000/- certificate was granted under Article 133(1)(a) &(b), strictly speaking, under sub-clause (b). Thus comes this appeal in this Court.

Reasoning:
Having appreciated all that has been said for the appellant in support of his first point we have come to the conclusion that the appellant was not denied any reasonable opportunity of visiting Germany at the proper time to participate in the enquiry. He has to thank himself for deciding not tois not necessary to enter into any detailed discussion of this point. In agreement with the Bench of the High Court we hold that all relevant documents were made available to the appellant either for inspection or forBoard committed no irregularity or illegality in sending a general questionnaire to S/Shri Bhalla, Sharma, Johri and Sen in India as the appellant had refused to submit a questionnaire. Copies of all the relevant statements and papers given to the Board at Dusseldorf were given to the appellant in September, 1959. Although there was some delay in supply of these papers, that did not cause any prejudice to theare distressed to find that the appellant was ill-advised to invent at a late stage a crudse and false story that on the 5th October, 1959 Doraiswamy-a member of the Board of Enquiry had shown the secret file to the appellant which showed t he bias of M. A. Hussain as he had dealt with the matter in the latter half of 1958. Although according to the statement in the Writ Petition (vide para 28) he had written his letter dated October 5, 1959 after the alleged showing of the confidential file by Doraiswamy to him, not a word is to be found in the said letter to this effect. Such a story was put forward in the written explanations which the appellant filed in answer to the punishment show cause notices. We reject points 5 and 6 of the appellant.oint no.appellant was not entitled as a matter of right to have the services of any railway officer stationed in India to assist him in the conduct of his defence. He wanted an officer from India especially Shri Bhalla. It was not possible to make available the services of an officer from India. The appellant was given a wide field of choice either to choose any railway official stationed in London or in the continent or some other personnel of the Indian High Commission in London. The accusations made against the appellant were not such that required any expert or special skill. The question was a simple one whether he had taken money from Gottwald in discharge of his official duties. Having appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that no principle of natural justice was violated in not making available to the appellant the services of Shri Bhalla or any other railway officer stationed in India for the conduct of his defence.In the entire background of this case we find a passage occurring at page 803 in the Judgment of Lord Denning, Master of t he Rolls in the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Mughal(1) quite apposite to be quoted. The passage runsrules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke the rules of natural justice so as to avoid the consequences."