- (1.) This appeal is against a judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., discharging Civil Rule No. 6150 (W) of 1968. The said rule was obtained by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution against several orders passed by the respondents culminating in the appellate order passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the order of punishment which was inflicted upon the appellant by the respondent No. 3 was modified to some extent but allowing the order of punishment to stand in respect of the remaining portion.
(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are as follows: The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Govt. High School, Port Blair in June, 1959. In June, 1960 the appellant was promoted to the post of senior teacher and in 1964, the appellant was confirmed as a senior teacher. Thereafter he was posted as senior teacher in the Higher Secondary School for boys, Port Blair. The appellant is an employee under the administration of Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as 'the administration'), Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It was alleged that one Deepak. Pal Singh who is the son of Chief Secretary of the Administration was not promoted to Class X at the first instance, but at revaluation of the examination papers he was promoted. According to the appellant this was done as a special favour due to the influence of the Chief Secretary. The. appellant's case is that he had protested against such action, which according to him, amounted to favouritism. It was alleged that a a result of the opposition of the appellant to the aforesaid course adopted by the administration the appellant incurred the displeasure of the administration. It was further alleged that the appellant's wife Sm. Shanti Pandey was selected as a Principal of the Govt. Higher Secondary School for girls, . Port Blair. But the respondent No.1 wanted to have one Mrs. Lucie Abraham for the said post, she being the wife of Sri A. G. Abraham, Conservator of Forests, Port Blair. The said Sri Abraham was a very high official under the administration and he had considerable influence there He managed to win the favour of the respondent No. 1 who ultimately on 28th July, 1967 issued an order reverting the appellant's wife to her parent department under the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant's wife Sm.Shanti Pandey moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and a Rule nisi was issued on 25th Sept., 1967. On 15th November, 1967 the respondent No. 3 the Education Officer issued an order of suspension against the appellant on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant was in contemplation. On the same day another order of suspension was issued on the same ground by the respondent No. 2, the Secretary (Finance) to the Chief Commissioner of the administration by which the appellant was placed under suspension with immediate effect. On 4th December, 1967, a charge-sheet was issued by the respondent No. 2 along with imputations of misconduct. The charges against the appellant were that the appellant had proceeded on unauthorised leave and he left his station of posting and the territory of the administration without the permisison from the departmental authority. It was alleged that the appellant applied for leave to the Principal in the afternoon of 13th September, 1967 intimating that he intended to leave Port Blair on 14th Sept., 1967. It was alleged that he gave an undertaking in vague terms stating that he would come back by the flight on the 25th Sept., 1967, in case everything is alright. After coming to the mainland the appellant sent successive telegrams requesting for extension of leave periodically but in none of his telegrams the address in the mainland was given. It was further alleged that the appellant deliberately misguided the administration and be haved in an irresponsible manner. On 23rd December, 1967, the appellant sent his reply to the charge-sheet and stated that he had applied long before he submitted the formal petition and with the sanction of leave by the Principal he had gone on leave. He further alleged that it was the practice of the employees of the administration to go on such leave: On 20th Jan., 1968, the Education Officer, being the respondent No.3 passed an order of punishment directing that the next two increments of the appellant should be withheld with cumulative effect. The suspension order of the appellant was revoked on 20th Jan., 1968. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal to the Chief Commissioner, the respondent No. :1 on 4th March, 1968. According to the appellant he sent several reminders for early disposal of the said appeal. But in the meantime a second suspension order dated 6th May, 1968 was issued by the respondent No. 3. On 11th July, 1968, the appellant received an appellate order dated 14th June, 1968, by which the respondent No. 1 modified the punishment to one of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. In so far as the suspension order was concerned the respondent No. 1 directed that the same would stand.
(3.) In the writ application which was filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution, he challenged the two orders of suspension dated 15th Nov., 1967, being annexures Nos. A and A-1 to the petition. The orders of punishment dated 20th January, 1968 passed by the respondent No. 3, being Annexure 'E', the appellate order dated 14th June, 1968 passed by the respondent No. 1, being annexure 'J', and the subsequent suspension order dated 6th May, 1968 passed by the respondent No. 3, being annexure 'I" were also challenged by the appellant. As stated earlier the rule came up for final hearing before Sabyasachi Mukharji J. who discharged the same by a judgment and order dated 17th Nov., 1972 against which the appellant has preferred the present appeal.;