- (1.) THE petitioner is a dismissed employee of the Antarim Zila Parishad, Bareilly, opposite party 3. He has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the president, Antarim Zila Parishad, opposite party 2, passed on 4 January 1962 dismissing the petitioner from service and also the order of the Commissioner dated 12 July 1962 upholding the dismissal.
(2.) SRI G. D. Srivastava appearing for the petitioner has raised a number of objections to the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner. The first of these objections was that the charge which was preferred against the petitioner does not contain an actual statement of the evidence which was to be used against the petitioner. In this connexion Sri Srivastava relied upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and other [1967 - II L.L.J. 266]. In this case it was held at p. 269: "... the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet, the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applied to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequence..." In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the essentials of natural justice in explaining the fundamental rules of the natural justice. It mentions that the person charged must be informed of the case and the evidence in support thereof. But it did not specifically lay done any rule that the show- cause notice itself must mention the evidence in the form of enumerated items. My attention was invited to an appendix of a copy of G.O. No. R.O. 57/XI-A-14-1953, dated Lucknow, 13 June 1953, from the Secretary to Government Uttar Pradesh, to all District Magistrates, Uttar Pradesh, relating to the procedure to be followed in disciplinary proceedings against servants of the local bodies. In the appendix, the form of charge to be used in disciplinary proceedings is given. Here, after the specimen charge framed somewhat in the manner in which the charge is framed in a criminal proceeding, the following sentences occurs: "Evidence which it is proposed to consider in support of the charge." Thereafter, the evidence has to be mentioned itemwise and numbered. It is certainly better to follow this direction and set out the evidence in support of the charge. In the present case, the charge (annexure I to the petition) is a four-page document containing twelve heads of charges. After each charge, actual facts upon which the charge is based are mentioned. But these facts are not numbered. As an instance I may mention charge 2 which states: "a sum of Rs. 268 was drawn in the name of the Engineer A.Z.P. who paid the amount to you for the purchase of stamp, writing and registration charges in connexion with the donation of the building of Dhaunra by Sri Ram Murthi Ji."
(3.) AFTER that, occurs the following statement of facts: "The entire file of the case was also handed over to you. Neither the account nor the stamp and the connected file has so far been submitted by you. In this case you have admitted that a sum of Rs. 78.50 is still in balance with you which should have been refunded by you long ago but you are misappropriating it as per your statement." Thus, it was indicated, after framing of each charge, that the adhyaksh was going to rely upon certain facts within the knowledge of the petitioner himself which had been put to the petitioner in the course of the enquiry conducted in relation to the charges.;