V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Altafur Rahman, who was an employee in the Central Excise Department. According to the petitioner after having passed his B.Sc., examination in the year 1943 he joined as an Inspector Central Excise and was posted at Mogha in the district of Feerozpur. He, according to the petition, carried on his duties efficiently and diligently to the utmost of his capacity and in 1952 he was posted at Jhinjhana Range, district Muzaffarnagar, from where he was transferred to the Cigarette Factory by the order dated 8th September, 1952. As alleged by the petitioner, there was one Dharma a tobacco cultivator who got displeased with the petitioner as he wanted certain remissions in the assessments made by him, but the petitioner refused. Therefore, he lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the Assistant Collector, Meerut, upon which the Assistant Collecor, Meerut, asked the petitioner by a letter dated 10th of March 1953 to explain two matters. I need not give the details of the matters on Which explanation was sought for. An explanation on those two matters was submitted by the petitioner on the 14th of May, 1953. On the 3rd of August 1953 he was served with another charge-sheet in which five matters were asked to be explained. The explanation was submitted by the petitioner on the 20th of October, 1953. The petitioner thereafter gives in the petition the details of the charges and the explanation which are not necessary to be given here in the judgment.
(2.) After the explanation of the charges had been given Sri Section P. Asthana, Superintendent of Central Excise, Dehradun, was appointed to make an enquiry into the matter by an order dated 19th of November, 1953, and the enquiry was conducted by the aforesaid Mr. Asthana from the 27th of January 1954 to the 30th of January 1954 in which the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence were examined. It was contended that two of the witnesses of the petitioner, that is, Janardan Das and Prakash Chand though served with a notice did not turn up. The petitioner applied for their resummoning, but that request was rejected by Mr. Asthana, who called upon the petitioner to submit his written argument, which was submitted on the 13th of February 1954. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report to the Collector, opposite party, on the 27th of February 1954. On receipt of that report the Collector served a second notice upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service though the Enquiring Officer had only recommended the withholding of the petitioner's increment for five years. In pursuance of that notice the petitioner submitted an explanation on the 7th of May 1954 and specifically requested the Collector to give an opportunity to him to be heard in person. Later on a supplementary explanation was further submitted on the 8th of June, 1954.
(3.) It is contended in the petition that the opposite party that is the Collector of Central Excise did not read the explanations nor gave an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case personally and by his order dated 6th of September 1954 removed the petitioner from his post without considering the fact that the petitioner had to his credit a long service of about eleven years with creditable work and without any blemish. The petitioner applied to the Collector that fuller copy of the judgment may be given to him so that he may be in a position to file an appeal and he received a reply from the Collector dated 30th of September 1954 saying that the copy of the order supplied to him was the full order. Against the order of the Collector the petitioner filed an appeal to the Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi. That appeal was rejected and the petitioner was informed of the rejection by the Collector, Central Excise, on the 6th of December 1955. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the Hon'ble the Finance Minister of the Government of India which was forwarded to the President of India for consideration and the petitioner was informed by the Collector by his letter dated 22nd April 1957 that that petition has also been rejected. Thereafter this petition was filed in this Court against his wrongful removal.;