P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.:— The High Court of Assam and Nagaland quashed an order removing the respondent from service on the ground that there was no evidence to support the charge against him. This appeal is by special leave against that judgment.
2. The respondent was a Sub-Deputy Collector in the employment of the Government of Assam and in that capacity was directed to distribute sums of money to the agriculturists of Missamari as compensation for the occupation of their lands by the army authorities. It appears that the respondent had to travel from Dhekiajuli to Missamari to disburse the payments and found it difficult to obtain conveyance to reach Missamari. On 24-9-1963 the villagers of Missamari who were to be paid compensation were waiting for the respondent who however arrived in a school bus at about 12 noon. Though the respondent made payments to some of them he could not pay all of them. He informed them that if he gets a conveyance he will come the next day, but otherwise they should come to Dhekiajuli. The people who were still to be paid said that it would be inconvenient for them to go to Dhekiajuli and later suo motu decided that they would pay the charge of conveyance known as “gari bhara” (carriage hire).
3. The respondent arrived next day at Missamari in a taxi, went into the room of the Mauzadar and began to make payments. There was a huge crowd inside the room and it appears that there were also large crowds outside. It appears that several persons were collecting amounts from the villagers who were being paid compensation. It is in evidence that there was someone collecting arrears of land revenue, some other person was collecting pooja contribution and yet others were collecting amounts allegedly for gari bhara (carriage of the Sub-Divisional Officer). There is also evidence to show that a person was collecting some fee allegedly on behalf of the respondent.
4. While these collections were being made the Assistant District Magistrate, Shri M.R Deka visited Missamari and was met by some villagers on the way. On their complaint that they were being made to pay gari bhara from out of the compensation amounts paid to them, he asked two of them to get into his jeep and with them arrived at Missamari. On reaching Missamari he seized Rs 110 collected by one Tajmudin who had also a list of persons from whom he had collected. Tajmudin was sitting outside the room and making collections of Rs 1 or Rs 2 from each person towards gari bhara. The Additional District Magistrate then made a report to the Government on which a preliminary enquiry was held and a prima facie case being found against the respondent, an enquiry was ordered.
5. The enquiry officer framed a charge and examined 21 witnesses and as the High Court has pointed out some evidence in respect of matters extraneous to the charge was let in which it was contended was likely to prejudice the enquiry against the respondent. We shall refer to this aspect of the matter later.
6. The charge framed against the respondent was that “he realised” from those to whom he was paying compensation amounts certain percentage of compensation money due to them (total amount realised Rs 110) “for payment of the hire charges of a vehicle by which he was reported to have visited the office of the Mauzadar from Dhekiajuli”. He was therefore charged with “illegal collection of money in the name of gari bhara which he was not authorised to collect”. He was further charged with harassing the persons to whom the compensation money for requisition was due by compulsorily, unauthorisedly and illegally realising the so-called gari bhara from each of them.
7. In the statement of allegations served on him it was stated that some amounts were collected from the villagers by the Muhorrior of the Mauzadar, Missamari on his behalf towards paying the hire charges of a vehicle in which he travelled from Dhekiajuli to Missamari and a sum of Rs 110 thus collected on his behalf was seized by Shri M.R Deka, the then Addl. District Magistrate, Darrang in the course of a surprise visit to enquire about the irregularities reported to have been committed by him.
8. The enquiry officer after reviewing the evidence on the charge of collecting gari bhara realised that there was a lacuna in that evidence inasmuch as it did not directly or indirectly connect the respondent with the collections made outside the room where he was distributing compensation monies. He therefore asked himself this question: “Can it therefore be said that the SDC who was inside the room does not know of this collection which was made just near the door itself?” and immediately proceeded to answer it in the affirmative by basing his conclusion on a mere conjecture. He said:
“On a perusal of the evidence of the above four witnesses I am convinced that what they said was true. I do not believe that these witnesses deposed falsely just to implicate the SDC.”
9. The enquiry officer further brushed aside the statement of the respondent as well as his witnesses who had corroborated his statement when they said that they did not hear the SDC asking anybody to collect the gari bhara. Here again he posed the question: “whose statements then are to be believed, that of the SDC or the prosecuting witnesses?” This question was also answered in the affirmative again on conjectures. He said:
“On a perusal of all the evidence on record I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the statement of the SDC that the allegation is a false and concocted one is not true. I see no reason why the villagers will depose falsely against the SDC and I see no reason also what grudge they will have against him. I am convinced, as I have already said, that the SDC knew of the collection of ‘gari bhara’ otherwise no person will be so daring as to make the collection near the door itself without the express or implied consent of the SDC.”
10. From the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer which we have perused and to which a reference will be made presently, it is clear beyond doubt that none of the witnesses testified to the fact that on 25-9-1963 or earlier, neither the respondent authorised the collection of gari bhara nor did anyone say that they complained to him about the collections that were being made outside his room. The enquiry officer recorded evidence on allegations extraneous to the charge such as that certain amounts were being collected as fee to be paid to the respondent, that the respondent had disbursed amounts less than those that were payable to the persons entitled to them and concluded that the respondent must have also authorised the collection of gari bhara.
11. As we said earlier, there was no charge against the respondent that he had not paid the full amounts to those entitled to compensation or that he had authorised anyone to collect any fee. This enquiry into extraneous allegations with which the respondent was not charged must have certainly prejudiced the enquiry officer against the respondent. Even if we were to ignore this aspect, there is no evidence to connect the respondent with the allegation that he had authorised the collection of gari bhara much less can it be said, as averred in the charge, that he realised from those persons to whom compensation was being paid, certain percentage of compensation money due to them for payment of hire charges of the vehicle in which he had visited the office of the Mauzadar from Dhekiajuli.
12. The learned advocate for the State submits that there is evidence in the case to connect the respondent with the collection by Tajmuddin of the gari bhara charges. This evidence however does not substantiate his contention. Mathew Kosla, Witness 3; Jiban Deka, Witness 4; P.C Deka, Witness 5 and Rathu Kurmi, Witness 6 though they say that amounts were collected by Bharat Chandra Das and Tajmuddin, some of them had protested but they did not go to the SDC to complain about the collection. None of them stated that the SDC had asked for collection of the amounts.
13. Tajmuddin, Witness 8 admitted that he had collected the money for gari bhara. He says the reason for this collection was that on a certain day before 25-9-1963, many people were waiting at Mouzadar's office for the SDC to come and make payment. He came at about 12 noon by bus from Dekiajuli and told them that it was a school bus and that he will not come again to Missamari to make payment and that all people should go to Dhekiajuli to receive payment. The crowd stated that it would be very inconvenient and troublesome for them to go to Dhekiajuli. As such the crowd themselves decided that they would contribute for the gari bhara of the SDC to come and make payment at Missamari. As a result of the above agreement, Moni Gaonbura collected gari bhara for the SDC on 24-9-1963 and on 25th September ADM Shri Deka who came to Missamari found him collecting monies. Hiren Saikia entered on a paper the names of the contributors and he collected the money and Bharat Das collected the pooja subscription. He further says that he learnt that Mohidar Deka and Moniram Gaonbura also collected gari bhara for the SDC. According to him when ADM Deka enquired of him as to on whose behalf he collected the money, he told him that SDC Shri Kalita asked him to collect. As will be noticed this is not what ADM Deka says. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he collected the money for himself which of course he denied.
14. Mohidhar Deka who is a Moherrer of Mouzadar said he was collecting the arrears of land revenue and that Tajimuddin was collecting the gari bhara for the SDC from the recipients of money and Hiren Saikia entered their names on a paper. This collection was in pursuance of the peoples’ decision the previous day to pay for the gari bhara of the SDC and as such as soon as each came out of the room he willingly contributed for the gari bhara and the contributor's name was entered on a paper by Hiren Saika and that when the ADM asked the SDC as to why gari bhara was being collected, the SDC said he did not know anything. He also admits that no one informed him that the SDC asked him to collect the gari bhara.
15. Shri Paresh Chandra Sharma is the Mouzadar of Missamari. He says he heard the SDC saying that he cannot come the next day and that the public would have to go to Dhekiajuli to receive payment. He admits that he did not know anything about the collection of gari bhara nor did he hear the SDC demanding it nor did he complain to him that gari bhara was being collected.
16. Hiran Chandra Saika, Witness 14, though he admits that he did not meet SDC on 25-9-1963 nonetheless volunteers that the SDC asked all people present there to pay for the taxi charge. Obviously this witness cannot be relied upon.
17. ADM Shri Deka says that when he enquired of Tajimuddin he told him he was collecting the money at the instance of Hiren Saika who according to the ADM ran away as soon as he entered. There is no mention of his ever having asked the SDC as to why this amount was being collected towards gari bhara and without even getting his explanation he had reported the matter to the DO in writing. This he did in spite of his further admission that no person had complained to him that the SDC had personally collected the money from them.
18. This evidence does not establish that the SDC had either authorised the collection or that the amount was collected at his instance or that he even connived at it. On the other hand as ADM Deka admitted, when he asked Tajimuddin he informed him that the amount was being collected at the instance of Hiren Saika who immediately on seeing him ran away. According to Tajimuddin, two other persons, namely, Mohidhar Deka and Moniram Gaonbura were also collecting gari bhara amounts.
19. It appears to us that because compensation amounts were being paid everyone was trying to collect whatever he could from those recipients. There was no need for the respondent to collect any money for payment of taxi charges because he could recover those from the Government and in fact he had recovered that amount from the Government. There is no dispute that he did express his difficulty in finding a conveyance to come to Missamari as indeed he had to come there on that day in a school bus. He was not sure whether he could get a conveyance to come there the next day and naturally he informed those concerned that if he cannot get any conveyance and come there they should go to Dhekiajuli. It is at that stage that they suggested that he should come in a taxi and they will pay for it; but this did not imply that the SDC had consented to anyone collecting monies for the hire or much less permit them to pay for the hire on his behalf. All this merely shows that the suggestion that they should come to Dhekiajuli would seriously inconvenience them and they were even prepared to pay his taxi fare if he came to Missamari. Their earnest entreaties must have persuaded the SDC to come there in a taxi. Beyond this, there is no evidence to show that he had wanted them to pay for his taxi or authorised them to collect money for it.
20. The High Court was therefore right in quashing the order of the ADM, Tezpur on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the charge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.