A S RAZVI Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHS AHMEDABAD
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHS AHMEDABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India filed by one A. S. Razvi in which he seeks to quash an order of dismissal dated 9th September 1960 passed by respondent No. 1 who is the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Ahmedabad. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the Post Master General Bombay and the Union of India respectively.
(2.) The facts leading upto the present petition may shortly be stated. The petitioner was in the service of the Government of India Post and Telegraph Department and at all material times was employed as a time-scale permanent clerk in that department. He was working since 1956 at Ahmedabad under the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs. Respondent No. 1 Shri T. N. Pardasani took charge of the Office of the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs sometime in July 1958. That Officer visited in July 1959 the office in which petitioner was working. On or about 11th July 1959 immediately after this visit respondent No. 1 made an order transferring petitioner to Surat. Thereupon petitioner on or about 21st of July 1959 addressed a letter to the Post Master General Bombay in which he prayed for the cancellation of the order of transfer and stated amongst other things that the transfer order was based on and motivated by extraneous considerations. He also alleged therein that respondent No. 1 was bearing a communal outlook and that he was trying to shield his corrupt subordinates. The Post Master General Bombay sent a communication dated 8th of August 1959 to respondent No. 1 in which he said that he did not see any justification for Interfering with the order of transfer and told respondent No. 1 to consider the advisability of taking disciplinary action against petitioner after full inquiry into the case in question . Thereupon respondent No. 1 on 13th of August 1959 issued a notice to petitioner containing a chargesheet. We will mention the contents of this chargesheet just in a moment. By the notice respondent No. 1 called upon petitioner to substantiate the allegations which he had chosen to make against him i. e. respondent No. 1 in his letter dated 21st of July 1959 addressed to the Post Master General. On receipt of this notice petitioner on 11th for September 1959 made a representation to the Post Master General through respondent No. 1 requesting him that respondent No. 1 should not be permitted to institute an inquiry against petitioner and that petitioner should be given a chance to prove the allegations made by him against respondent No. 1 before an independent officer. This representation was returned by respondent No. 1 to petitioner on the ground that the signature thereon did not appear to tally with his usual signature and petitioner was asked to resubmit the same after curing the defect. Petitioner however did not resubmit the representation. In the meantime respondent No. 1 had appointed one Shri G. Rajaram one of his subordinates to hold an inquiry into the charges framed against petitioner. Petitioner did not attend this inquiry. Thereupon Rajaram sent the papers back to respondent No. 1 stating that petitioner had remained absent On this respondent No 1 issued a second show cause notice why he should not be dismissed from Government service. In response to this notice petitioner explained that he had not attended the proceedings before Rajaram as he was ill. Thereupon respondent No. 1 appointed one Deshmukh another of his subordinates to hold an inquiry into the allegations made against petitioner. The inquiry was fixed for hearing on a particular date. According to respondent No. 1 though petitioner was present at the office in which Shri Deshmukh was working he did not appear before that officer to answer the charge. In the meantime petitioner made another representation on 11-6-1960 to the Post Master General requesting that officer to let him know whether he should or should not appear before the inquiry officer. Petitioner received no reply to this representation. However petitioner did not appear before Shri Deshmukh. Therefore the latter sent the papers back to respondent No. 1. Thereupon respondent No. 1 issued on the 6th of the August 1960 a second show cause notice calling upon petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Government service. Petitioner showed cause on 29th of August 1960. Ultimately by the impugned order dated 9th of September 1960 respondent No. 1 dismissed petitioner from Government service. Thereafter petitioner presented the petition on 8-11-1960 praying that the aforesaid order dated 9th September 1960 be brought up before this Court by a writ of certiorari; that the order be quashed and that a further order be passed reinstating him in Government service.
(3.) The charge sheet which was tendered against the petitioner by the show cause notice dated the 13th August 1959 was divided into two sections. In the first section it was stated that the petitioner in his representation dated the 21st July 1959 had made the following allegations viz.:-
(1) The Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Ahmedabad is revengeful and communal and this spirit he expresses at every opportunity seized by him to penalise Muslim staff at large. (2) The Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Ahmedabad is either misled or directly otherwise interested in corrupt people and only acts on the advice of such people. (3) There are several cases of corruption going on in Ahmedabad Phones Sub-division which have been allowed to be ignored by the Sub-divisional Officer Phones and the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Ahmedabad needs investigation. The responsible officials in such affairs are enjoying because they being in good books with the superiors and when the things are coming to light they are trying to blame a poor subordinate .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.