R.S.Narula, J. - (1.) Vijey Singh Yadava, petitioner, has prayed for quashing the order of the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated Jan. 7, 1964 (Annexure 'F) dismissing him from service and quashing the appellate order of the State Government dated Sept. 5, 1967, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of dismissal.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Live-stock Assistant in Oct., 1958, vide order Annexure 'A'. On a complaint by one Gurdev Singh, Sarpanch of village Baja Khana, District Bhatinda, about the behaviour ,f the petitioner towards the public an enquiry into the matter by Shri Kishan Chand Vj, District Animal Husbandry Officer, Bhatinda, was ordered an Feb. 5 .19-)3. . According to his report dated Feb. 18, 1963 (Copy.Annexure 'B'"; the petitioner tendered his apology regarding the charge of miss behaviour and promised to be of good behaviour in future so as now to give any , sauce of., complaint to the members of the Panchayat or public. In the report. the Enquiry Officer -stated regarding the allegation of shortage) that the inspection mote dated Oct. 18. 1962 in which shortage was complained of was found missing from, the, inspection hook and that the petitioner had not yet replied to those charges though l.e had made sloe remarks on the body of the Feeding Register which, according to the Enquiry Officer, were . not, true. The report , with the relevant documents was forwarded to the Director consequent on the fact finding report. referred to' abode. the petitioner was suspended by, order. dated March 5, 1963 (Annexure 'C') and charge-sheet dated March 22, 1963 Annexure 'D') was served on him. In that charge-sheet,' it was alleged (i) that the petitioner had sold, about 21/2 'Mounds of grams which were saved by him by giving Lesser quantity of feed than that 'shown to have been consumed by the rams; (ii) that he had' deputed Class IV' employees of the Centre for harvesting of crops 'of 'Zamindars' and charged Rs. 5.00 per days per man; (iii) that the premises of the Centre were found to be most dirty and untidy at the time of the visit of the Director;" (iv) that 'the condition of the rams. etc. was very poor at the time of the said visit and "showed that the animals were riot properly fed according to the approved 'shale' (v) that the petitioner lid ;not enjoy good reputation 'while" at Baja Khana which brought bad same to the' department;, and (vi) that the petitioner,s behaviour towards his superiors and public was rude while at Baja Khana' Various other charges were also levelled against him in the same charge sheet. These charges were of (i) shortage in stock having been detected at the time of Inspection by the Supervisor, (iii) the removal of the- inspection cote of the Supervisor, (iii) being in the habit of taking liquor and exposing himself In the public etc. Petitioner was asked to explain his position, with regard to the above mentioned charges within 15 days of the receipt of, the charge-sheet. A copy of the charge,sheet (Annexure 'D') was forwarded to the Sheep and Wool Development Officer. Hisiar, with a, direction to visit Baja Khana and to conduct the necessary inquiry covering the allegations referred to in the charge-sheet and requiring him to forward to the Director the explanation of the petitioner when received. Petitioner sent.a detailed reply ''to the charges. Enquiry into the matter was then conducted by an Enquiry Committee consisting of the Deputy Director, Anima; Husbandry, Patiala and the Sheep and Wool Development Officer, Hissar. In their joint report listed May 6, 1963 (Annexure 'E') the members of the Enquiry Committee reported that some of the charges against the petitioner had been proved and recommended that in view of the seriousness of the charges the petitioner preserved to be dismissed from service. The enquiry report along with the statements recorded at the enquiry were forwarded to the Director. After the conclusion of the enquiry, personal hearing was given to the petitioner on Nov. 4, 1963, by the Director. The petitioner complained that he had not been allowed the opportunity to produce witnesses Thereupon, opportunity for that purpose was allowed to the petitioner. In the endorsement forwarding to the petitioner a copy of the Memorandum dated Nov. 23, 1963 (Annexure 'F'), issued by one of the Enquiry Officers to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Baja Khana (asking him to arrange for tFe attendance of the three witnesses named in that communication) it was stated that the petitioner should produce his defence witnesses before the Enquiry Committee The veterinary Assistant Surgeon was informed that the Enquiry Officers would be attending Baja Khana on Nov. 28 1963. and was told to inform all interested persons about the same. The Enquiry Officers reported that having reached Baja Khana on Nov. 28, 1963, the petitioner did not produce any of the witnesses but merely refused to get the enquiry conducted by the old Committee. On coming to know about that fact, the Director; Animal Husbandry, sent to the petitioner Memorandum dated Dec. 2, 1963 (Annexure 'G') asking him why he had not informed the Director at the time of personal hearing that he did not want the proceedings to be conducted by the Old Committee. In his reply dated Dec. 5, 1963 (Annexure 'H') the petitioner stated that since re-enquiry had not been ordered in the presence of the petitioner on Nov. 4, 1963 the petitioner got no opportunity to request for the (additional) enquiry not being conducted by the same Committee. He further stated that on Nov. 28, 1963, the petitioner had never asked for any opportunity to produce the complainant. He complained of no proper opportunity having been allowed to him to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to produce his defence. He prayed for an order of fresh enquiry being passed. After considering the entire material, the Director passed the impugned order (Annexure 'J') dated Jan. 7, 1964, in the following words: "After thorough consideration of explanation tendered by Shri Vijey Singh, Stock Assistant, Sheep and Wool Extension Centre, Baja Khana (now under suspension) in response to the show cause notice served upon him vide my No. 11107-E4/435. XI. B. dated 5.6-63 and after giving personal hearing on 4-11-1963 and taking into account the report of enquiry officers. I find that he is guilty of the charges, levelled against him and his explanation is not at all satisfactory. He has rather tried to delay the proceeding on one pretext or the other. I have, therefore, decided to dismiss him from service with immediate effect." On Feb. 28, 1964 (February 27. 1964. according to the return of the respondents), the petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order of dismissal to the State Government. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the appeal was dismissed on Sept. 5. 1967 but no copy of the order of the appellate authority has been filed. Though on behalf of the State it is alleged that copy of the appellate order dismissing the appeal is Annexure 'D 10' to the return, the document marked 'D-10' and filed - with the return is obviously not the appellate order It was in the above mentioned circumstances that this writ petition was filed on Dec. 20, 1967. for quashing the original and appellate order of the petitioner's dismissal.
(3.) In the State's return, it has b.-en denied that the petitioner was forced by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Bhatinda, to give in writing that he may be pardoned. His note Annexure 'D-3' dated 15-2-1963 (filed with the State's return) contains the written apology tendered by the ti V ul. J petitioner. Therein, he sincerely apologised to all the members of the Panchavat Baja Khana and promised to bear good character and to be of good behaviour to the public and not to give any cause of complaint again. In Paragraph 11 of the return. it has been claimed that though in the suspension order the Sheep and Wool Development Officer, Hissar, was asked to conduct the enquiry. yet he could not do so in the absence of specific charge-sheet against the petitioner. It has been stated therein that later specific charge-sheet was prepared and served on the petitioner and the Enquiry Committee consisting of the two members, already named, was appointed so that the enquiry against the petitioner could be conducted in a fair manner Regarding the additional proceedings before the Enquiry Committee, after the personal hearing before the Director on Nov. 4, 1963, it has been stated in paragraph 18 that the request of the petitioner was not for conducting a fresh enquiry tut was only to take down the statement of these witnesses whom the petitioner had named at the time of the personal hearing before the Director and whose statements, according to him, were re'e%ant.;