Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

For these reasons I must, in disagreement with the learned lower Court hold that the conclusions arrived at by Government in respect of charge No. 8, are not vulnerable in this litigation.

17. Charge No. 4 : The respondent drew Rs. 900 as travelling allowance in connection with his transfer from Koraput to Sundargarh. It was alleged that he actually paid only Rs. 195/- to the truck owner who carried his personal effects from Koraput to Sundargarh. But as the truck owner did not agree to give evidence, Government rightly held that the charge was not proved conclusively. Nevertheless they came to the conclusion that there was strong suspicion against the respondent inasmuch as the receipts which he produced in proof of payment to the truck owner are dated 31-4-1949 whereas the trucks were used for carrying the articles of the respondent on 10-11-48 on which date, according to the explanation given by the respondent in Ext. 20, they actually reached Sundargarh. If this was a case of bona fide use of the trucks by the respondent on proper payment one would have expected the respondent ordinarily to pay the charges to the truck owner at the place where the articles were delivered, namely, Sundargarh, and also on the very date on which the goods reached the place, namely 10-11-48. But it is admitted by the respondent in his explanation that he obtained these receipts from the truck owner several months later after writing to a clerk in the office of the Special Assistant Agent, Koraput. The District Magistrate Sundargarh while commenting on the aforesaid explanation rightly pointed out (See Ext. 25):

"Had he paid the money himself while at Koraput, he would not have left the vouchers to be collected by the clerk later on. If he sent the money later on, he should have been in a position to produce evidence of the remittance."

Though the aforesaid circumstance, by itself may not suffice to show that the charge was established, nevertheless Government were entitled to hold that the production of receipts in token of payment, several months after the alleged payment with the help of a clerk in the Special Assistant Agent's office at Koraput raised a strong suspicion against the conduct of the respondent.

From the tour diary of the aforesaid officer it appears that this officer (Sri J.N. Misra) had learnt, from his general enquiries in Koraput district that the Special Assistant Agent (meaning the respondent) had no reputation for honesty and that in, connection with the smuggling of rice from. Koraput to Andhra Pradesh through the Sunki Check gate, he had learnt from the Inspector of Supplies at that check post that illegal gratifications were being taken by public servants including the Special Assistant Agent (respondent). One Khilla Appala Narsimham specifically told this officer that bribe was given to the respondent for unauthorised transport of rice. Similarly one Poshala Raju of Salur also made some statements against the respondent.

The explanation of the respondent was that these supplies were meant for higher officials who came an tour to Koraput. Whatever that may be, this unusually friendly dealings between the Inspector of Supplies at Sunki Check post (whose primary duty was to check smuggling of rice) and the Special Assistant Agent, may lead to an adverse inference against the respondent's reputation for honesty -- especially when it is admitted that the respondent gave a very good certificate to the Inspector of Supplies. There is also no satisfactory explanation to account for the recovery of this letter' from the respondent's house at Sundargarh long after his transfer from Koraput.