Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THESE proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are an aftermath of the demonstrations which took place on 11th of July, 1960, outside the office or the Accountant -General, Punjab, Simla, in connection with the impending Central Government employees' strike which was scheduled to commence on the midnight of 11th and 12th of July, 1960. The Petitioner, M.L. Kandhari who was amongst the demonstrators was an Upper Division Clerk in the Accountant General's office of about nine years' standing when he was removed from service by the impugned order of the Accountant General, Punjab, Simla, passed on 1st of October, 1960, with immediate effect. The appeal preferred to the Comptroller and Auditor -General, who is the appellate authority, was dismissed on 24th of August, 1961. It, is asserted on behalf of the Petitioner in the writ petition which was filed on 19th of December, 1961, that he has Won singled out from amongst 1200 participants in the strike for this exacting penalty.
(2.) THE Accountant General, Punjab, Simla, was informed at about 3:30 P.M. on 11th of July, 1960, that two Sub -Inspectors of police were on their way to his office to arrest certain persons who were suspected to taking active part in furtherance of the strike which was scheduled to commence at midnight. These police officers interrogated seven officials, two of these being P.L. jhingan, General Secretary, Punjab Civil Accounts Association, and K.K. Verma, Superintendent. The persons who were interrogate were assembled in the room of the Accountant General at about 4 P.M. In order to effect the release of these per -sons, there was a big demonstration outside the office and slogans were shouted for the long lives of jningan and other persons inside the room of the Accountant -General it was demanded that the seven persons should be release forthwith. After consultation with the District authorities it was decided at about 5 -45 P.M. to let go the persons who were being interrogated. They were, however, instructed to appear at the police station at 7:30 P.M. It is in connection with the demonstration which took place outside the office of the Accountant -General that M.L. Kandhari was charge -sheeted on 22nd of July, 1960 in the first stance, only two charges were framed against him, these being by participating in a demonstration and raising Slogans and participating in a meeting convened to ask the staff to go on strike and himself participating in the strike M.L. Kandhari violated the provisions of Rule 4 -A of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 Charge No. 2. That the said Shri M.L. Kandhari by associating him -self with the raising of funds for the furtherance of the threatened strike contravened the provisions of Rule 9 or the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. Subsequently, by a memorandum of 19th of August, 1960, three more charges were added, it was alleged that on 11th of July, 1960, during office working hours, Kandhari went from room to room and carried on propaganda in favour of the Impending strike; further, that between 4 -00 to 4:30 PM. on 11th of July, 1960, the Petitioner went about from room to room in the Railway Board Building to ask the members of staff to assemble before the Accountant -General's room to stage a demonstration against the alleged arrests of Sarvshri P.L. Jhingan and K.K. Verma, and lastly, that at about 9:00 P.M. he took part in a secret meeting held at the house of Shri R.K. Chaona to chalk out plans and to allot duties to the various persons for obstructing men from attending office and for making the strike a success. Shri A.K. Mathur, Deputy Accountant -General, was appointed an Enquiry officer by the Accountant -General. The immediate reaction, of the Petitioner when he received the memorandum of the Deputy Accountant General along with charge -sheet on 22nd of July, 1960, was to express an unqualified regret in paragraph 3 of the reply, Which is marked Annexure 'B', the Petitioner stated thus: ...yet I beg to be excused; and I further assume you, sir, that I shall endeavour very hard not to give any opportunity or suspicion, in future, about my conduct. I mention this particularly because the Accountant -General as the punishing authority had been actuated in reaching the tentative conclusion that the Petitioner deserves to be removed from service by a consideration expressed in paragraph 7 of his order that the whole evidence led by him leads to the conclusion that he has no regret for his misbehaviour. The continuance of such a person in service is a potential danger to the discipline and efficiency of the office.
(3.) BEFORE I deal with the contentions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent, I would like to mention that on the conclusion of the strike the Union Government declared a general amnesty for the strikers and announced that they would be dealt with leniently and nobody would be victimised. It is the case of the Petitioner that the avowed policy of clemency, announced by the Government has been departed from in his case and out or the twelve hundred strikers he alone has been punished. these assertions which have been made in Clauses (c) and (g) of paragraph 15 of the petition are not specifically traversed and all that is submitted on behalf of the Respondent is 'that the punishment meted out to the Petitioner is in accord with the gravity of his offence and no Kind of discrimination has been practiced, it is not denied that the Union Government had announced amnesty and other demonstrators have been let off altogether or awarded lighter, or normal punishments.;