TMI Blog1963 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 1937. On August 4, 1952, he was suspended as complaints had been received against him and an enquiry into the said complaints was contemplated. Accordingly, charges were framed against him and his case was referred for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal appointed under the Rules. The Tribunal held an enquiry and exonerated the respondent from the charges framed against him, in August 1953. While the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending, additional complaints were received by the appellant against the respondent's conduct, and they were communicated by the appellant to the Tribunal with an intimation that the appellant proposed to send those further charges against the respondent for enquiry. The Tribunal did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was bound to grant his request that the enquiry against him should be held by the Administrative Tribunal appointed Under the Rules. That is why the writ petition was allowed and the order directing the enquiry to be held by the appointed authority under Rule 55 of the said Civil Services Rules was quashed. This order was challenged by the appellant by an appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division Bench agreed with the view taken by the learned single judge and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has come to this Court. Mr. Hajela for the appellant contends that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of matters involving :- (a) corruption; (b) failure to discharge duties properly-. (c) irremediable general inefficiency in a public servant of more than ten years' standing; and (d) personal immorality. (2) The Governor may, in respect of a gazetted government servant on his own request, refer his case to the Tribunal in respect of matters referred to in sub-rule (1). It would be noticed that Rule 4 (1) confers discretion on the Governor to refer to the Tribunal cases failing under clauses (a) to (d) in respect of servants specified by the first part of sub-rule (1). In regard to these cases, the government servant concerned cannot claim that the enquiry against him should not be held by a Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended to be conferred and imposed. In the present case, it is the context which is decisive. The whole purpose of rule 4 (2) would be frustrated if the word may in the said rule receives the same construction as in sub-rule (1). It is because in regard to gazetted government servants the discretion had already been given to the Governor to refer their cases to the tribunal that the rule-making authority wanted to make a special provision in respect of them as distinguished from other government servants falling under rule 4 (1) and rule 4 (2) has been prescribed, otherwise rule 4 (2) would be wholly redundant. In other words, the plain and unambiguous object of enacting rule 4 (2) is to provide an option to the gazetted government serva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
