JOGENDRA CHANDRA TALUKDAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Jogendra Chandra Talukdar. The Petitioner was working as a Mandal in the Barnadar Circle in the Barpeta Subdivision since the year 1948. On the 25th May 1954 the Petitioner was given by the Sub -deputy Collector a bill for Rs. 1,232/ - for being cashed from the Barpeta Treasury. The bill was cashed and thereafter the money was lost. The Petitioner was put under suspension and the matter was sent for police investigation. The final report was submitted by the police. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, however charged the Petitioner for (1) misappropriating public money and (2) absenting himself from duty and asked him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service or otherwise punished. The Sub -divisional Officer, Barpeta inquired into the matter and gave his findings. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner asked the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and after the Petitioner submitted his explanation, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated the 10th June, 1957 dismissed the Petitioner from service.

(2.) THE point which falls for consideration in the present case is whether there was any violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. So far as the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the only grievance made out by the Petitioner is that the copy of the report of the Sub -divisional Officer, Barpeta who inquired into the matter, was not sent to the Petitioner when he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) THE first question which falls for consideration before us is whether there is any statutory provision under which the Petitioner has been given a right to file an appeal against an order of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing him from service to the Government and secondly whether the Government violated any principles of natural justice in not giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner when deciding the appeal. Reference is made to the following passage in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division : 1958 SCR 1240 at p. 1254 : AIR 1958 SC 393 at p. 466, in support of the contention that the Government had to act judicially in disposing of the appeal: