http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. ANIL KUMAR GHOSH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/08/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SRINIVASAN, J.      The first  respondent who  was a  senior officer in the cholera Research  Centre (now known as National Institute of Cholera and  Enteric Disease)  had for  over a period of ten years wrongly  claimed House  Rent Allowance  to the tune of Rs. 16,819.95.  Under the  relevant  Rules,  an  officer  or employee residing  in his  own house  could claim House Rent Allowance only  if the  annual rental  value as assessed for municipal purposes  was more  than 10%  of the  salary.  The annual rental  value of  the house  occupied  by  the  first respondent which  was his  own as  assessed for tax purposes and entered  in the  municipal Registers  was much less than 10% of  his salary.  However, he  obtained certificates from the   Chairman,   Vice-chairman   and   Secretary   of   the Municipality that  the rental  value of the premises "may be safely committed" at a particular amount per month which was in excess  of  10  %    of  his  salary.  He  produced  such certificates in  support of  his statement  that the monthly rental value actually assessed for municipal purposes was in excess  of  10%  of  his  salary  and  claimed  house  Rent. Allowance. Unfortunately  for him  the Internal  Audit Party found out  the game  which lead  to a  departmental  enquiry against him.  He was  found guilty  and removed from service with  a  disqualification  from  future  service  under  the council. 2.   The first  respondent challenged  the order  in a  writ petition before  the Calcutta  High Court.  A learned Single Judge held  that the  enquiry against  him was  vitiated  by violation of  principles of  natural justice and quashed the order. On  appeal, a  Division Bench  affirmed that finding. But strangely, the Bench went one step further and held that even if  the charges were true, it would only prove that the first respondent  was indiscreet and there was no misconduct on his  part. It  is that judgment which is assailed in this appeal. 3.   Even at  the outset, we wish to point out that the view expressed by  the Division Bench of the High Court that even if the  charges  were  true,  there  was  no  misconduct  is shocking especially  when benefits  have been  obtained from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

out of  public funds  on  false  certificates.  Fortunately, learned counsel for the first respondent appearing before us did not  justify that  view  of  the  Bench.  Hence,  it  is unnecessary to  dwell upon  it for  long. Suffice it to hold that the  view of  the Division  Bench of  the High Court is obviously wrong and it is hereby overruled. 4.   Now  we  shall  advert  to  the  question  whether  the principles  of   natural  justice   were  violated  and  the departmental enquiry was vitiated. The memorandum of charges issued to  the first  respondent set  out the  following tow charges :-          "ARTICLE OF CHARGE - I         -----------------------           That the  said Dr.  A.K. Ghosh      declared in  1964 that  the  rental      value of  his  own  house  in  284,      Mudially Road,  Calcutta  -24,  was      Rs. 150/-  p.m. (or  Rs. 1920/- per      annum)  as  actually  assessed  for      municipal purposes  while in actual      fact the  annual value of the house      as assessed  by  the  Garden  Reach      Municipality for  the house  of Dr.      Ghose for the year 1961-62 to 1965-      66 was  Rs.  235/-  for  the  years      1966-67 to 1970-71 Rs.260/- and for      the years  1972-73 to  1976-77, Rs.      290/- only.           ARTICLE OF CHARGE II           ------- -- ---------           That Dr.  Ghosh claimed  house      rent  allowance  of  Rs.  16,819.95      which was not admissible to him for      the  period  from  August  1964  to      August 1975  by submission of false      documents." 5.   A statement of imputation was attached to it. A list of documents by  which the articles of charges were proposed to be sustained was appended. There was no list of witnesses as the department  did not  propose to examine any witness. The enquiry was held in seven session s commencing from 31.12.76 and ending  with 4.6.77. The daily proceedings were recorded and shown  to the  first respondent who signed the same. The first respondent  did not  submit any  list of witnesses. In fact ,  he stated  on more  than one occasion that he had no witness to  be summoned  on his behalf. In the course of the enquiry  he   made  a   request  orally  for  summoning  the Administrators and other authorities of the Municipality and the  Accounts   Officer  of   the  Council  to  testify  the statements made  by them.  The Enquiry officer expressed his view that  they were  not necessary  but permitted the first respondent to  produce them on his own as his witnesses. The latter did not avail of that opportunity. 6.   The copies  of the  proceedings were handed over to the respondent as  and  when ready and he himself deposed on the all points  referred to  in the  statement of  defence .  It should be mentioned here that the defence taken by the first respondent in  the enquiry  was that  he claimed  HRA on the basis of  certificates issued by the Municipal authority and the same  had been granted. He contended that the assessment of the  annual value for municipal purposes was only for the assessment of  taxes levied  by  the  municipality  and  the assessment of  rental value  for claiming  HRA was  entirely different. According  to him  the rental value could even be assessed  by   the  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  24

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Parganas, Alipore. 7.   During the  enquiry he  had opportunity to peruse every document that  was sough  to be used in evidence. Apart from the certificates  produced by  himself of r claiming H.R.A., copies of the Municipal assessment register for the relevant period certified  to be true copies by the Secretary, Garden Reach  Municipality   and   issued   under   the   seal   of Administrator of the municipality were marked as exhibits. A perusal of  the list  of exhibits  shows that they consisted only of  the official  correspondence and  the  certificates produced by  the first  respondent and  the certified copies issued by the Municipality. At the conclusion of the enquiry the first respondent made his submission on the basis of the materials on  record. The  Enquiry officer after considering the matter  in detail  gave his  findings in  his report  on 21.7.77. He held that both charges stood proved. 8.   The Disciplinary  Authority accepted  the report  as he found that  the material on record was sufficient to sustain the findings.  The main  grievance put  forward by the first respondent before  the High  Court in the writ petition with regard to the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice was   that  the  witnesses  whom  he  wanted  to  be examined by the Enquiry officer were not examined. Secondly, it was  alleged that  the documents  were marked as exhibits only on  July 21,  1977 after  the conclusion o the enquiry. Thirdly, it  was urged  that the  Enquiry officer was biased against the  first respondent. The fourth objection was that the Municipal Authorities who had issued certified copies of the municipal  assessment register had not been examined and consequently  those   documents  were   not  admissible   in evidence. 9.   Unfortunately, the  above objections  found favour with the Single  judge as  well as the Division bench of the High Court. In  our opinion,  none  of  the  objections  has  any substance. 10.  The entire  record of the enquiry proceedings have been placed before  us. We have gone through the same and we find that there  is absolutely no justification in the allegation that principles  of natural  justice have  been violated. We have already  referred to the fact that the first respondent did not furnish any list of witnesses and only in the course of enquiry  he requested  the Enquiry officer to examine the officials  of   the  Municipality   who   had   issued   the certificates produced  by him  in support  of his  claim  of H.R.A. It  is surprising  that the High Court overlooked the simple fact  that the said certificates were produced by the first respondent  himself as  having been issued by the high officials of  the Municipality and unless the factum of such issuance was  in dispute  there was  no necessity to examine those officials.  At  another  stage  the  first  respondent challenged the authenticity of the internal audit report and wanted the  author  thereof  to  be  examined  in  order  to substantiate the  same. the  presenting officer  stated that the said  report was not necessary for the case and the same was  not   introduced  in  evidence.  Hence,  there  was  no necessity to  examine the  Accounts officer who prepared the internal audit  report. If  the first  respondent wanted  to examine any  witness on  his side  he was  given  sufficient opportunity to produce witnesses and examine them but he did not do  so. The record shows that he was permitted to reopen his defence  and present  further defence even on 28.3.1977. On that  date as  well as  on 7.5.77  he  had  categorically stated that  he did  not have  any witness  to be  called as defence witness on his behalf. 11.  The  second   objection  is  equally  meaningless.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

documents were taken on file during the curse of the enquiry and the first respondent perused everyone of them before the conclusion of the enquiry. Copies were also furnished to him and as  requested by  him he  was given seven days’ time for presenting his  defence  after  the  receipt  of  copies  of documents though  under the  rules only three days’ time was permitted. Instead  of giving numbers to the exhibits as and when the  documents were  taken on file, the Enquiry officer would appear to have given serial numbers to the exhibits at the conclusion  of the  enquiry on  21.7.77. The adoption of such procedure  by the  Enquiry officer was not violative of the principles of natural justice. 12.  There is  no material on record whatever to support the contention that  the enquiry  officer was biased against the first respondent.  The record  of proceedings of the enquiry shows that  the enquiry  officer has  acted impartially  and without any kind of bias whatever. 13.  The  objection   that  the   certified  copies  of  the assessment register  should not  have  been  marked  without examining the  concerned officials  of the  Municipality  is untenable. The  genuineness of  the documents  was never  in dispute. In  fact, the  case of the first respondent is that the assessment  in the  municipal register  was only for the purpose of  taxation and it is not relevant for the claim of HRA. 14.  We are  fully satisfied  that there was no violation of any  principles  of  natural  justice  in  the  Departmental Enquiry conducted  against the  first  respondent.  A  faint attempt was made before us to content that Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services. (classification, control and appeal) Rules was violate. The rule is in the following terms:            "14(3)  where it  is proposed      to  hold   an  inquiry   against  a      government servant  under this rule      and  rule   15,  the   disciplinary      authority shall draw up or cause to      be drawn up:-                (i) the  substance of the                imputations of misconduct                or   misbehaviour    into                definite   and   distinct                articles of charge;                (ii) A  statement of  the                imputations of misconduct                or    misbehaviour     in                support of  each  article                of  charge,  which  shall                contain -                (a) a  statement  of  all                relevant facts  including                any admission  confession                made  by  the  Government                servant:                (b) A  list of  documents                by which  and a  list  of                witnesses  by  whom,  the                articles  of  charge  are                proposed      to       be                sustained." 15.  We  have   already  referred   to  the  fact  that  the memorandum  of   charges  issue  dot  the  first  respondent contained distinct articles of charge and was accompanied by statement of  imputation and list of documents. Hence, there is no substance in the above contention. 16.  It is sought to be argued that the rental value for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

purpose of  HRA Rules  need not  be the  same as  the annual value as  entered in  the Municipal  register. There  is  no merit in  this contention. The relevant rule refers to gross rental  value   of  the  house  as  assessed  for  municipal purposes. An official Memorandum dated 26.5.69 marked as Ex. P-22 in  the enquiry  has  clarified  that  if  a  house  is situated within  a Municipality,  the grant of H.R.A. should invariably be  regulated on  the basis of gross rental value as assessed  by the  authorities of the municipality. Hence, we hold that the claim of HRA by the first respondent on the basis of  the certificates obtained from the chairman, vice- chairman and  secretary of  the Municipality  to the  effect that  the  rental  value  of  the  premises  may  be  safely committed at  a particular  amount when the value entered in the assessment register for municipal purposes was different was in  violation of  the relevant  rules. Consequently, the first respondent  was guilty  of the  charges framed against him. 17.  The  punishment   awarded  to  him  is  claimed  to  be disproportionate to  the offence committed by him. we do not agree. the  fact that  the  concerned  authorities  did  not detect the  falsity of  the claim  for about  ten years  and allowed the  same does  not help  the  first  respondent  to contend that the punishment should be reduced. 18.  The High  Court is clearly in error in interfering with the order  of punishment passed against the first respondent by the  Disciplinary Authority. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the  judgment and  order of  the High  Court  dated 19.2.1991 in  appeal from original order, Tender No. 2773 of 1989 and  the Judgment and order dated 15.9.89 in Civil Rule No. 212  (w) of  1979 are set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in Civil Rule No. 212 (w) of 1979 on the file  the High Court at Calcutta stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.