- (1.) This is an appeal by Baldev Singh appellant under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated December 5, 1967, of a learned Single Judge dismissing his petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in which petition the appellant had prayed that the order removing him from service be quashed.
(2.) This is a somewhat peculiar case in which on an earlier occasion similar order against the appellant was quashed, but in spite of that the respondents have still proceeded to take action against the appellant in the shape of removing him from service on an indefensible basis. The respondents to the appeal, as they were to the petition, are Secretary to Government Punjab in the Rehabilitation Department, Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, in the Rehabilitation Department, Revenue Minister, Punjab and the State of Punjab.
(3.) The appellant was recruited as a clerk sometime in 1944. He was confirmed in that position on August 12, 1957, by respondent 1. He had a promotion in 1951 as a Senior Clerk for about a year. On June 12, 1959, he was prosecuted for an offence under sections 420 and 109 of the Penal Code, when he was also suspended from service. On acquittal of the criminal charge he was reinstated, but respondent 2, the Deputy Secretary, on October 25, 1960, ordered a departmental enquiry, against him on two charges, the first of which had two heads. The Enquiry Officer absolved him of the first charge, but on the second charge, while the charge had said that the appellant had deliberately shown, in dealing with a case of exchange of land allotment, the nature and character of the land as Banjar Qadim, uncultivated waste, for a much larger area than the actual area of such a quality, the Enquiry Officer did not exactly find that this was done deliberately, but he came to the conclusion that the appellant had not scrutinized the Khasra Girdawaris and had been more careless and negligent in the performance of his duties which had led to such a disparity in the area of the quality of land that was to be considered at the time of the exchange of allotted land. This report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted on July 20, 1961, by respondent 2, who ordered removal of the appellant from service after of course issuing a show cause notice to him to explain such action. While his departmental appeal failed but on memorial to the Governor, Punjab, the order removing him from service was set aside on July 20, 1961, as having been withdrawn. It has been explained that that was because the punishing authority in his case is the Secretary in the Department, respondent 1 and not the Deputy Secretary, respondent 2. Within a week or so, on December 26, 1964, on the same report of the Enquiry Officer already made by him, respondent 2 for respondent 1, issued a fresh show cause notice calling upon the appellant why he should not be removed from service. After the appellant had given a reply on January 15, 1964, the Secretary in the Department ordered the removal of the appellant, and accordingly respondent 2 for respondent 1 issued the order of his removal from service on January 17, 1964, copy annexure 'B' to the petition of the appellant. The appellant having failed to obtain redress before the Departmental authorities in appeal or by representation, filed a petition in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of his removal.;