Decided on July 14,1953



PANIGRAHI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ for quashing the order of suspension passed by the opposite party against the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is a probationary Sub -Registrar appointed by the State Government under Section 7, Registration Act. He joined his duties on 26 -11 -1947 and was working as Sub -Registrar at Patrapur from 14 -5 -48. By an order dated 27 -6 -51 of the District Registrar he was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct. The DistrictRegistrar reported the same to the State Govern -merit who passed orders on 2 -8 -52 approving of the action of the District Registrar in suspending the petitioner and allowed him to draw the subsistence allowance according to rules, pending enquiry into his conduct. The affidavit filed by the opposite party discloses that there were a number of complaints against the petitioner by the villagers of Patrapur about his own behaviour in his official capacity. In particular it was alleged by them that he was not staying in the village and was often running away from the station. There had been previous proceedings taken against the petitioner for neglect of duty and for absence from headquarters. On 14 -6 -1951 the District Registrar received a complaint from one, Ladi Satyanarayana of Patrapur that the petitioner had left headquarters without permission, falsely asserting that the office was closed for two days, namely the 15th and 16th June, 1951. On receiving this report the District Registrar deputed the District Sub -Registrar to verify it and make an inspection of the petitioner's office. The District Sub -Registrar reached Patrapur at 8 P.M. on 14 -6 -51 and found the petitioner absent. He finished his enquiry and left Patrapur on the afternoon of 16th June. The Sub -Registrar had not returned till then. The petitioner was, therefore, charged with having absented himself without permission from the 14th to the 16th June & that he had unauthorizedly closed his office. It was also found in the course of the enquiry that the petitioner had registered two documents at 9 P.M. on 13 -6 -1951, post -dating them to 14 -6 -51 and that he had made false entries in the registers. On receipt of the District Sub -Registrar's report on 19 -6 -51, the District Registrar reported the matter to the Inspector -General of Registration, recommending the dismissal of the petitioner as he was only a probationer and that it was not necessary to draw up any formal proceedings against him. While the orders of the Inspector -General of Registration were being awaited, on this recommendation, the petitioner sent a telegram on 26 -6 -51 to the effect that he had actually joined duty and had assumed charge the previous day but that the villagers were hostile and that he was apprehensive of an attack by them on his person and the records. On receipt of the telegram the District Registrar proceeded to the village on 27 -5 -51 to make a further enquiry into the truth or otherwise of this statement. He found the contents of the telegram to be absolutely false and immediately passed orders suspending the petitioner pending enquiry as a 'prima facie' case of misconduct had been made out against him. The suspension of the petitioner was necessary to enable the holding of a formal enquiry, and it was obviously not desirable that he should be permitted to continue in office while the enquiry was going on. In the meanwhile, the state Government, acting on the report of the Inspector -General of Registration asked him to frame draft -charges against the petitioner. But before this was done the petitioner sent a letter of resignation on 28 -8 -51 which was forwarded by the District Registrar, recommending that it may be accepted and the proceedings dropped. The Inspector -General of Registration accepted the resignation of the petitioner on 29 -12 -51 and dropped the proceedings - -subject to the approval of Government. The matter would have ended there but for the petitioner praying, by another letter dated 21 -1 -52, that his letter of resignation be treated as withdrawn. The Inspector -General accepted the withdrawal of resignation on 4 -2 -51. Government, however decided that the suspension should not be terminated and that the enquiry should be expedited. On 2 -8 -52 charges were framed against the petitioner and he was asked to submit his explanation, which he did on 2 -9 -52. On 2 -8 -52 Government also passed orders approving the action of the District Registrar suspending the petitioner and allowed him to draw subsistence allowance, according to rules, pending enquiry.
(3.) THE present petition was filed on 18 -7 -52 just two weeks prior t to the framing of charges.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.