BIR BAHADUR THAPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(HPH)-1991-6-14
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 04,1991

BIR BAHADUR THAPA Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEVINDER GUPTA,J. - (1.) Petitioner by filing this writ petition, on October 10, 1981, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of Annexure P -34 resolution passed by respondent No. 3 on October 7, 1976, ordering his dismissal from its service as Toll Tax Clerk and the consequent order Annexure P -36, passed by respondent No 2, dismissing his statutory appeal, conveyed to him on June 15, 1977 and the order dated November 6, 1979 Annexure P -38 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting his representation which was conveyed to the petitioner on November 15, 1979.
(2.) Petitioner on September 30, 1961 was discharged from the Indian Army, where he was employed as Naik Clerk in 3/4 Gorkha Rifles, after he had rendered fifteen years of service. He was thereafter employed in Cantonment Board Dalhousie on October 15, 1965 as Fire Supervisor. On a post of clerk falling vacant, he applied for being posted against the said post stating that he had passed the Indian Army First Class English and First Class Hindi certificates and was possessed of relaxation in Education qualification as per certificate dated May 31, 1961, which was attached to his discharge certificate On July 5, 1972, the petitioner was promoted as typist -cum record keeper which post he held till his dismissal from service on October 7, 1976, vide Annexure P -34 order.
(3.) Petitioner, on August 1, 1976, vide Annexure P -9, was informed by respondent No 4 of resolution of respondent No 3 resolving to put him under suspension, pending enquiry, in connection with the allegations of misappropriation of cantonment fund, disobedience and negligence of duty. On September 2, 1976, charge -sheet Annexure P -3 was served upon him, as required under sub -rule (1)of Rule 12 of the Cantonment Fund Service Rules, 1937 (hereinafter called as the rules), framed by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924, It contained charges under the following heads : - (a) absence from duty ; (b) tampering with office record ; (c) negligence in duties and inefficiency ; (d) threatening cantonment staff, thereby committing an offence under section 118 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and committing offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; (e) dishonesty in preferring wrong T. A. claim and deceiving Cantonment Board regarding educational qualification ; (f) unauthorised acquisition of immovable property ; and (g) indebtedness.;


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