K KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA NOW ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the legality of the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner is assailed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed Sub-Inspector of Excise on 23-4-1928 by the Commissioner of Excise. He was promoted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in December 1941 and he was reverted as Sub-Inspector in April 1945. In or about the year 1946, he was transferred to the Prohibition Department as Sub-Inspector by the Board of Revenue and was confirmed in that office on 10th November, 1951. He seems to have been guilty of several irregularities and lashes which led to the framing of six charges in 1952. The charges were communicated to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written statement within one month from the date of the receipt of the memo of charges. The memo of charges was sent by registered post and it was received on 29-12-1952 by the petitioners son, who acknowledged receipt. No written statement was filed as directed in that memo within the time in spite of several reminders. Thereafter the petitioner sent a reply stating that he was sick, unbalanced in mind and wag not in R fit condition to offer his explanation and peruse the record. On receipt of this, a requisition was issued by the Respondent to the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Amalapuram for report whether the petitioner was in a condition to appear in the departmental enquiry. After examining the petitioner, the Doctor sent a report that the petitioner was fit to attend the departmental enquiry. Thereupon, the department asked the petitioner to file this written statement within ten days of the receipt of the memo. This was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, but the notice was evaded under some pretext or other. Having made every attempt to serve the petitioner and failed, the enquiring officer submitted his findings on the charges framed. Taking into consideration the findings, the concerned officer required the petitioner to submit his further representation against the proposed punishment of dismissal within seven days of the receipt of the memo. Although the said memo was received by the petitioners son no further representation was received from the petitioner in spite of several reminders.

(3.) Having waited for some time, the respondent proceeded to Annavaram and recorded a statement from the petitioner on 25-9-1953. In this statement the petitioner expressed a desire to peruse certain records and he was allowed all facilities to look into whatever records he wanted. The final representation was made by the petitioner on 30th October, 1953, Once again, the provisional findings which were reached on a consideration of all the material, were forwarded to the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his final representation. It was done on 15-5-1954. In addition to the charges and enquiry above mentioned, two more charges were framed in regard to his work at Annavaram and he was asked to submit an explanation. The petitioner adopted the same attitude as before, namely, evading service of summons, with the result that the department had no option but to give its findings on those charges also.