DATTATRAYA RAGHUNATH Vs. JANAPADA SABHA, BURHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing an order of the opponent No. 1, the Janapada Sabha, Burhanpur, inflicting on him the punishment of suspension from 1st December 1954 to 25th December 1958.

(2.) THE material facts are that the petitioner was working as a Head Clerk in the office of the Janapada Sabha, Burhanpur, getting a salary of Rs. 150/ - per month. On 19th August 1954 he was appointed as Superintendent in the grade of Rs. 150 -5 -175. He was suspended on 1st December 1954 pending an enquiry into certain charges against him. On or about 18th March 1955 he was supplied with a copy of the statement of charges framed against him by the Administrative Committee of the Janapada Sabha. The charges were to the effect that on the death of one Badriprasad, an employee of the Sabha, his widow Ramkali became entitled to receive Rs. 283 -4 -0 from the Sabha; and that the applicant, who was dealing with the matter of payment to Ramlali, paid her Rs. 188/ - only obtaining from her a false receipt for Rs. 283 -4 -0 and thus misappropriated the difference. The petitioner submitted his reply on 8th June 1955 denying the charges levelled against him. Then upon an enquiry into the charges was conducted by the then Chief Executive Officer, Shri C. N. Rabra, who was, however, transferred before the enquiry could be completed. The enquiry was resumed by Shri Singh, the succeeding Chief Executive Officer, who on the statements recorded by his predecessor made a report to the Sabha on 30th September 1957 after hearing the arguments advanced by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made an application to the Sabha for being supplied with a copy of the report submitted by Shri Singh and a copy of the decision or resolution of the Administrative Committee thereon, and praying for a hearing. The applicant did not get these copies or a fresh hearing before any authority. It appears that on the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, the Administrative Committee resolved on 3rd April 1958 that the charges against the petitioner had been proved and that the penalty of suspension from 1st December 1954 up to 3rd April 1958 should be imposed on him for those charges. The opponent No. 2 approved this decision of the Janapada Sabha, and later on, on 26th December 1958 the Chief Executive Officer communicated to the applicant the decision of the Administrative Committee and the approval of the Government to it and the penalty of suspension imposed on him. Thereafter the petitioner resumed his duties.

(3.) IN reply, it was submitted on behalf of the opponents that the Administrative Committee was empowered under Section 70 (2) of the Act to exercise the power of the Sabha to appoint officers and servant; that, therefore, it was competent to take disciplinary action against the applicant; that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by Shri Rabra to defend himself against the charges that he actually cross -examined the witnesses tendered to support the charges; that when Shri Singh, who succeeded Shri Rabra, resumed the enquiry, the applicant never prayed that Shri Singh should examine the witnesses afresh; that, on the other hand, the applicant, though asked to lead further evidence, declined to do so and asked that the case should be fixed for arguments; that under the rules framed under Section 182 (2) (xv) of the Act the petitioner was not entitled to any show -cause notice against the charges or against the punishment of suspension; and that specific rules having been framed under the Act regulating the procedure to be followed where the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank was intended to be imposed on any servant of the Sabha, the principles of natural justice could not be invoked.