TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hafiz Habib Beg. On 17th of August you sent for Mst. Jamila from the house of Hafiz Habib Beg at about 7 p.m. through your orderly Jangu Khan and detained the girl at your house for immoral purposes. Next morning the girl expressed desire to go with her father who came to receive her at your house but you did not allow her to do so and again sent back the girl to the house of Hafiz Habib Beg. (2) That on or about August 10, 1944, the police, on the complaint of one Puttulal produced before you one Mst. Gunga Kurmin for whose arrest you had issued a warrant under Section 100, Cr.P.C. You directed Mst. Gunga and Puttu. Lal to be escorted to your house by your orderly Jangu Khan. You sent away Puttu Lal and detained Mst. Gunga alone at your house for about two hours evidently to use her for immoral purposes. (3) That sometime in the last week of July, 1944, a girl named Taqderan was produced before you under a warrant of arrest issued by you under Section 100, Cr.P.C. but you asked the parties to present the girl after court hours at your house. When the girl was brought to your house you asked the people accompanying her to stay outside and took the girl alone inside your hou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal against the order of the trial Court in so far as that Court did not-uphold his contention that the enquiry held by Mr. Bishop was wholly vitiated. Thereafter the Government proceeded ex parte. It accepted the report of the enquiry officer, came to a tentative conclusion that the respondent should be dismissed; it consulted the Public Service Commission afresh and dismissed the appellant by its order dated August 30 1949. That order reads thus: Government of the United Provinces Appointment (A) Department. Notification Dated Lucknow, August 30, 1949 With effect from August 30, 1949, Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Collector, under suspension is dismissed from service. Sd/- Bhagwan Sahay Chief Secretary. As a result of the aforementioned order another round of litigation started which has culminated in this appeal. The respondent challenged the impugned order in Civil Suit No. 14 of 1953 in the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad on various grounds. The plaint filed by him is prolific. That plaint as amended covers twenty closely printed pages. Most of the grounds taken in the plaint are irrelevant and have no bearing on the issues arising for decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges had been served on the respondent; he had been given reasonable time to file his written statement; the oral enquiry was held in his presence and that he was heard in person. It also held that the enquiry officer had given reasonable opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. In conclusion it observed my clear opinion, therefore, is that there has been no breach of Rule 55 as contended to by the plaintiff. The procedure laid down in Rule 55 has been substantially adhered to and Mr. Bishop was also conscious of this fact all the time. 6. The trial court rejected the contention of the respondent that he had not been given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment Rejecting the contention of the respondent that the impugned order is not valid as the same was not made in the name of Governor, the trial court observed that the order was made in the name of the Government. It was made after obtaining the approval of the Premier and with the concurrence of Public Service Commission; hence that order is substantially in accordance with law. In the result it dismissed the respondent's suit with costs. 7. The High Court reversed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dismissal of the plaintiff. Read in the context of the report, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Hon'ble Premier had agreed only to the proposal that the case of the plaintiff be decided on the basis of the old materials and that the matter be referred to the Public Service Commission. We are, therefore, of the view that even those documents which were contained in the Government file, do not go to establish that the order of dismissal was passed by the Premier or that it was issued after the Premier had applied his mind to the facts of the case and after he had felt satisfied about the same. and (4) That the enquiry held by Mr. Bishop is vitiated for the following reasons: (i) That the enquiry officer had not given any finding on the 4th charge: (ii) That there is no proof to show that Mr. Bishop had been appointed to enquire into the charges by the competent authority or the second show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority; (iii) That the respondent had not been supplied with a copy of the report of Mr. Bishop before he was called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment; and (iv) That the enquiry officer did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post Any minor irregularity in the matter of conducting the enquiry cannot vitiate a finding which is SO obviously correct. Once it is held that the respondent was properly found guilty under Charge No. 1, it is unnecessary to go into the other charges. The gravity of the offence of the respondent under the first charge is such as to merit his dismissal from service. As observed by this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidya-bhushan Mohapatra that if the order of the government can be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment imposed can be lawfully imposed, it is not for the court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority dismissing the public servant. 9. Reasonable opportunity contemplated by Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935 as under Article 311(2) of the Constitution primarily consist or (I) opportunity to the concerned officer to deny his guilt and establish his innocence which means he must be told what the charges against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (ii) he must be given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him and examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court were wholly wrong in holding that there was no proof to show that Mr. Bishop had been appointed to enquire into the allegations. No such plea had been taken in the plaint There is a presumption that official acts had been done according to law. 11. In this Court, the respondent who argued' his own case contended that the enquiry was vitiated because the enquiry officer had relied on the statements given by some of the witnesses behind his back; that he had not been given the true copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Deputy Commissioner; that the translations of those statements given to him were full of mistakes and that Mr. Bishop was biased against him. 12. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the fact that the statements of the witnesses taken at the preliminary stage of the enquiry were used at the time of the formal enquiry does not vitiate the enquiry if those statements were made available to the delinquent officer and he was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in respect of those statements-see State of Mysore v. Shivbasappa . It is clear from the records of the case that the respondent had been permitted to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken for the first time in the High Court. The High Court should not have entertained that contention. Under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, appointments to the Civil Service and Civil Posts in connection with the affairs of a Province could have been made by the Governor or such person as he might have directed. The material on record does not afford any basis for the conclusion that the respondent was appointed by the Governor. Therefore the High Court, in our opinion, was wholly wrong in holding that the respondent was dismissed by an authority lower in rank than that appointed him. 16. In view of our above conclusion, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the proposal to dismiss the respondent was approved by the Premier though on the basis of the facts found by the High Court, there is hardly any doubt that he did approve the proposal to dismiss the respondent from service. 17. This Court has repeatedly held that the provisions of Article 166(1)(2) (similar to Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 59 of the Government of India Act, 1935), are directory and substantial compliance with those provisions is sufficient - See P. Joseph John v. Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
