Case: C. L. Subramaniam Vs. Collector Of Customs, Cochin

This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant was a Preventive Officer, Grade, 11, Customs Office, Cochin from June 16, 1962 to January 31, 1963. In April 1962, he applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs, seeking permission to allow his wife to run a taxi service. He was informed that no permission was necessary for his wife to operate a taxi service but he should not canvass any business for his wife. Thereafter, it is said that the appellant acting on behalf of his wife purchased some cars which were used as taxis. It appears that there were several , complaints against the appellant to the effect that he was canvassing business for his wife. Those complaints were enquired into. Thereafter on March 25, 1963 the appellant was served with a memorandum stating that while functioning as Preventive Officer, Grade II, Cochin Customs House, during the period June 1962 to January 31, 1963 he had contravened the provisions of rule 12(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The factual allegation made against the appellant was that he canvassed business for his wife. He was told that an enquiry will be held against him on the basis of that charge.

Court's reasoning:
(C. L. Subramaniam)"Even after getting this letter, the Enquiry Officer did not fix the date of the enquiry. It appears that on December 30, 1963 the Enquiry Officer fixed January 8, 1964 as the date of enquiry. It is only thereafter he wrote to the Superintendent of Post Offices requesting him to permit Abraham Kurian to assist the appellant. It is not known when that letter was received by the Superintendent of Post Offices but Abraham Kurian did not get the permission sought, before the date of enquiry. Therefore he was unable to assist the appellant in the enquiry. Hence the enquiry went on without the appellant having anybodys assistance.From the facts set out above, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer did not afford the appellant necessary facility to have the assistance of another Government servant in defending him which assistance he was entitled to under the rule. He was deprived of that assistance solely because of the indifferent attitude adopted by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had clearly breached rule 15(5).It is needless to say that rule 15 is a mandatory rule. That rule regulates the guarantee given to Government servants under Art. 311. Government servants by and large have no legal training. At any rate, it is nobodys case that the appellant had legal training. Moreover when a man is charged with the breach of a rule entailing serious consequences, he is not likely to be in a position to present his case as best as it should be. The accusation against the appellant threatened his very livelihood. Any adverse verdict against him was bound to be disastrous to him, as it has proved to be. In such a situation he can not be expected to act calmly and with deliberation. That is why rule 15(5) has provided for representation of a Government servant charged with dereliction of duty or with contravention of the rule by another government servant or in appropriate, cases by a legal practitioner. For the reasons mentioned above, we think that there had been a contravention of rule 15(5). We are also of the opinion that the appellant had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Hence the impugned order is liable to be struck down and it is hereby struck down. The facts of this case are not such as to justify any fresh enquiry against the appellant. Hence we direct that no fresh enquiry shall be held against the appellant and he be restored to the position to which he would have been entitled to but for the impugned order.