Bhandari, C.J. - (1.) The principal point for decision, which has been somewhat obscured by the raising of a number of subsidiary issues, is whether the petitioner was denied the constitutional privilege of being heard before the order of dismissal was passed.
(2.) The petitioner in this case is one Sardar Kapur Singh who until lately was a member of the Indian Civil Service and employed as a Deputy Commissioner in the Punjab in a substantive permanent capacity. He was placed under suspension on 13-4-1949 and a written statement of charges was handed over to him in due course. Weston J. the then Chief Justice of this Court was requested to hold an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, on 18-5-1950 and he submitted his report on 14-5-1951. He found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 16,000/-and that he had knowingly permitted a certain contractor to cheat Government to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. A copy of this report was supplied to the petitioner on 112- 1952 and he was required to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a long representation to the President of India in which he complained that he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and requested that he should be permitted to call certain witnesses whom he wanted to produce before the Commissioner but who were not permitted to be produced. The president declined to reopen the case & after ascertaining the views of the Union Public Service Commission, passed an order, of dismissal oh 27-71953. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order on the ground that the constitutional rights guaranteed to him by Arts. 311 and 314 have been violated.
(3.) Three contentions have been placed before us in regard to Article 311 of the Constitution. It is stated in the first place that the Punjab Government had no power to order an inquiry into the conduct of the petitioner who was a member of the Indian Civil Service and that as the inquiry made in consequence of an illegal order is void, and as the report submitted by the Commissioner was void, the order of dismissal which flowed from it is of the same character. Secondly, it is contended that the Commissioner did not afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard as several of the witnesses whom he wanted to produce were not examined and several of the documents on which he wanted to rely were not called. Thirdly, it is argued that although the. petitioner was entitled to at least two opportunities of being heard --one before the issue of the show cause notice and the other after the issue of the said notice --the President declined to reopen the inquiry after the issue of the notice and denied him his constitutional right of being heard.;