Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) The petitioner joined service as Naib Tahisldar in the Province of Punjab in 1938. In 1949, he was served with a charge sheet containing 15 charges to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the enquiry was held under the Punjab Tahsildari Rules by the Deputy Commissioner. Hoshiarpur, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. After the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, (respondent 2) to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice and, after considering the same, the Commissioner found that three charges, namely, charges No. 3, 6 and 15 mentioned in the charge-sheet were proved against the petitioner and he, therefore, passed the order of his dismissal from service on Dec. 7, 1950 The petitioner filed an appeal to the Financial Commissioner (respondent 1), but the same was rejected by order dated May 10, 1952.
(2.) On Feb. 19, 1955, the petitioner filed a suit against the State of Punjab for a declaration that the order of his dismissal from the post of Naib Tahsildar passed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on Dec. 7, 1950, was wrong, illegal, null, void without jurisdiction, ultra vires and inoperative and was not passed in due process of law and was of no consequence whatever against the petitioner who continued to be a member of the Punjab Service of Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar in the Jullundur Division Certain other consequential reliefs were also prayed for. This suit was dismissed by Shri Om Nath Vohra, Subordinate Judge First Class, Jullundur, on June 5, 1956. Against that decree, an appeal was filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, which was accepted and the petitioners suit was decreed with costs throughout on Jan. 23, 1957. Against that decree, the State of Punjab filed an appeal in this Court (R.S.A. No. 370 of 1957). That appeal was accepted by Mahajan, J , on April 26 1960, and the decree passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court was upheld on all points except the point covered by paragraph 22 of the plaint and the case was remanded to the Senior Subordinate Judge for decision in the light of the observations made by the learned Judge in his judgment, which were as under: "The Senior Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the appellant on the interpretation of Art. 311 of the Constitution. With that interpretation I have not agreed. In this view of the matter, the only course left open is to send back the case to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge for determination of the allegations in paragraph 22 of the plaint. It maybe mentioned that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge will keep in view the decision of this Court in K. R. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1958 Punj 27) . In care the learned Senior Subordinate Judge comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not afforded proper opportunity by the Enquiry Officer, he should decree the suit otherwise be should dismiss the plaintiffs suit." After remand, the Senior Subordinate Judge held that the Enquiry Officer did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as the copies of the previous statements of the witnesses examined at the enquiry were not supplied to him, but that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by the failure of the Enquiry Officer to supply the requisite copies. In view of this finding, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on June II, 1960. Against that decree, R. S A. 1374 of 1960 was filed in this Court by the petitioner. That appeal again came up for hearing before Mahajan, J., who came to the conclusion that there had been no proper enquiry by the enquiry Officer and the lower appellate Court had taken an erroneous view of the matter. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the Judgment and decrees of the Courts below were set aside and the suit of the petitioner as decreed on Oct. 11, 1963. The learned Judge, however, observed In the end as under:- "This will, however not mean that it debars the Government from instituting a fresh enquiry and it would be necessary in the present case to do so because there are serious charges of corruption against the appellant. It is also in the interest of the appellant that he clears himself of those charges in a proper enquiry." In the body of the judgment the learned Judge clearly held:- "No copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded prior to the enquiry were made available to the appellant permitted to copy them out himself; even he was not allowed inspection of those statements. Therefore, it must he held that the rules of natural justice have been violated and thus there has been do proper enquiry in the present case." It is evident from this judgment that the whole enquiry against the petitioner was held to be improper and violative of the principles of natural justice and it was on that basis that the suit of the petitioner was decreed, The effect of this judgment was that the Enquiry Officers report was quashed and the State of Punjab was left at liberty to institute a fresh enquiry In fact it was emphasised that a fresh enquiry must be held as there were serious a charges of corruption against the petitioner and it was in his interest to clear himself of those charges in a proper enquiry.
(3.) After the decision of his appeal by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated by an order of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, dated Dec. 28, 1963. This order reads as under:- "Consequent upon setting aside by the High Court of Punjab, vide their judgment dated 1-10-1963, in civil Regular Appeal No, 1374 of 1960- Shri Parkash Nath Vs. Punjab State of the order dated 7-12-1950 of dismissal of Shri Parkash Nath then Naib Tahsildar candidate of this Division, passed by Shri J. M. Srinagesh, I.C.S, then Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Shri Parkash Nath is hereby reinstated in service, from the date he left charge of the post of Naib Tahsildar Zira, on his being placed under suspension, vide the then commissioner's order dated 30-7-1949, without prejudice to the result of the departmental enquiry to be held against him. And consequent upon his reinstatement in survivor Shri Parkash Nath is hereby posted as Naib Tahsildar to SIC the work pertaining to requisitioning of land for the Smt. SIC Classification Ranges at Jullundur, under the ands Requisitioning Officer, Jullundur, against the post sanctioned by Government vide their memorandum No. 1 (IV)-5J 63/48618 dated 3-12-1969." A copy of this order was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, on Jan. 17, 1964, and he was requested to draw up immediately a fresh draft charge-sheet along with a statement of allegations and lists of witnesses and documents, in the light of the observations of the High court made in its judgment dated Oct. 11, 1963, and send the same to the Commissioners office for the purpose of starting a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Against the holding of the fresh enquiry, the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on Feb. 25, 1964, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "As regards fresh enquiry, I beg to state that I may kindly be given an opportunity to convince your honour that no fresh enquiry is warranted. The High Court has set aside the order of dismissal only on the ground that I was not given a reasonable opportunity of defence. The High Court declined to go into the question whether the charges were proved or not on the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer Even if the High Court had not added a rider in their judgment that there should be a fresh enquiry, your honour could start a fresh enquiry. The reinstatement order given to me shows that it is intended to start a fresh enquiry against me. I am prepared to face an enquiry, but before it is started I beg to get an opportunity of explaining my position that even on the evidence which has already come on the charges howsoever defective the enquiry was it is clear that no charge is proved and rather it is clearly proved that the charges were fabricated against me to ruin my career. I have already suffered a great loss in my career, and do not wish to be harassed any more by any unwarranted enquiries. In case I am unable to satisfy you that fresh enquiry is not warranted, your honour may order a fresh enquiry. It is, therefore, repeated that this opportunity may kindly be givers to me to convince your honour that fresh enquiry is not warranted." In this representation, the petitioner had asked for certain other reliefs with regard to arrears of pay, allowances, promotion, lien etc., and, with regard to those matters, an order was passed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on July 3, 1964, but it is unnecessary to set out its contents.;