9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Procedural irregularities in the departmental enquiry. 2. Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 3. Validity of the charge-sheet. 4. Right to a personal hearing. 5. Pending appeal and alternative remedy. Detailed Analysis: 1. Procedural Irregularities in the Departmental Enquiry: The petitioner was verbally ordered to attend an enquiry without being informed of the subject matter or being provided a charge-sheet. At the enquiry, witnesses were examined in the petitioner's absence, and he was later confronted with some witnesses without being given their prior statements. The petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses, notably A. Rahman, whose testimony was relied upon by the enquiry tribunal. This procedure was deemed not in accordance with law and condemned. 2. Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution: Article 311(2) mandates that no civil servant shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a "reasonable opportunity" to show cause against the action proposed. The enquiry against the petitioner violated this provision as he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. The enquiry was conducted without a proper charge, and the petitioner was confronted with witnesses without prior knowledge of their statements, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice. 3. Validity of the Charge-Sheet: The charge-sheet issued on 14-8-1951 was found to be defective. It stated that the charges against the petitioner had already been proved and only asked him to show cause against the proposed punishment. This was not a valid charge-sheet as it did not provide the petitioner with the opportunity to contest the charges themselves. 4. Right to a Personal Hearing: The petitioner requested a personal hearing in his written explanation submitted on 29-8-1951, but no personal hearing was granted. This denial of a personal hearing was a significant procedural lapse, further violating the petitioner's rights under Article 311(2). 5. Pending Appeal and Alternative Remedy: The petitioner's appeal to the Chief Operating Superintendent, Eastern Railway, was pending since 8-9-1952. Despite repeated requests, the appeal was not disposed of, leading to the petitioner seeking judicial intervention. The court held that the pending appeal did not bar the issuance of a writ under Article 226, especially given the prolonged delay and the procedural defects in the enquiry. Conclusion: The court found that the enquiry procedure followed was not in accordance with law and violated the petitioner's constitutional rights. The order of removal/dismissal was set aside and quashed. The respondents were directed to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order, and if they wished to continue the departmental proceedings, they were to proceed according to law. No order as to costs was made.
|
