- (1.) JUDGEMENT The petitioner was employed as an automobile fitter in the Government irrigation Workshop, Izatnagar, Bareilly. The Executive Engineer, incharge of the workshop, dismissed him with effect from June 11, 1958. He has filed the present petition against that order. His grievance is : the Executive Engineer has dismissed him from service without observing the procedure prescribed in Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. He was not given any opportunity of producing his evidence and of cross-examining the departmental witnesses. He was not given a notice asking him to show cause against the proposed penalty. After the conclusion of the enquiry he was served with the order of dismissal.
(2.) ON behalf of the respondents Sri S.L. Mazumdar, Assistant Engineer, Incharge of the workshop, has filed a counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit alleges that the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself, but he did not avail of it. It is said that in effect he boycotted the enquiry. In paragraph 9 of his affidavit Sri Mazumdar has, however, admitted that no show-cause notice was sent to him asking him to explain why he should not be dismissed. It is asserted that such a notice was not sent to him because Art. 311(2) does not apply to him. It would follow from paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Mazumdar that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without observing the mandatory provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. His dismissal from service is, therefore, in plain violation of Art. 311(2). If Art. 311(2) applies to him, then the order would undoubtedly be void. The only question for consideration accordingly is whether that Article applies to him.
(3.) BEFORE taking up that question I would like to mention one fact. In this case the arguments were closed on April 13, 1964, and judgment was reserved by me. The case was listed again before the Court and on May 12, 1964. I directed the Standing Counsel to file a supplementary-affidavit giving replies to certain questions formulated by me. The Standing Counsel has now filed the supplementary affidavit giving replies to those questions. I shall advert to the supplementary affidavit later.;