1976 Supreme(SC) 466

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Tara Chand Khatri, Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 1972,
D/- 26-11-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. K. B. Rohatagi, V. K. Jain and M. M. Kashyap, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. N. Andley, Sr. Advocate,(M/s. B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Headnote:

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Section 92 - Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Appointed as an Assistant Teacher on temporary basis - Dismissal from service - No jurisdiction - Whether temporary or permanent to posts carrying a minimum monthly salary of less than three hundred and fifty rupees was vested in Commissioner - Whether findings recorded in report should be accepted or not - Whether it is obligatory on State Government to give reasons in support of order imposing a penalty on delinquent officer - Facts essential for the purpose of this appeal are appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on temporary basis in the pay scale which was subsequently revised to Rupees in Primary School, Northern Railway Colony II run by Education Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with effect from October - He was confirmed on the said post on September - On August he was transferred to the Senior Basic Middle School of Corporation - He was assigned the work of teaching certain subjects to both the sections of Class - In Section A of Class - There was at that time a student made a written complaint to the Education Officer of the Corporation a copy of which he endorsed to the Head Master of the School alleging therein that the appellant had sensually misbehaved with his son - In the School premises during the recess time Education Officer suspended the appellant - On April Assistant Education Officer, Rural North Zone, was directed by his superior to prepare a charge-sheet against the appellant whereupon a charge-sheet was drawn up and served on the latter on November – Thereafter Director of Inquiries, who was deputed to enquire into the matter proceeded to hold the enquiry and on consideration of the evidence adduced before him he submitted a report on May holding that the charge leveled against the appellant had been established - On receipt of the report and perusal thereof Deputy Commissioner Education of Corporation passed the following order on May – Held, Court would also like to point out that the observations in Travancore Rayon that this Court in effect overruled judgment of majority seem to have crept therein through some oversight - A careful perusal of decision would show that this Court did not make any observations therein which can be interpreted as overruling the majority judgment in Industries - It is also worthy of note that in amendment of Rule 55 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 introduced in July laid down a special procedure in regard to revisions - It required Central Government to send copies of application for revision to all imp leaded parties including the person to whom a lease had been granted calling upon them to make such comments as they might like to make within three months from the date of the issue of the communication and on receipt of the comments from any party to send copies thereof to the other parties calling upon them to make further comments as they might like to make within one month from date of the issue of communication - Old Rule 55 was replaced by a new rule which came into force - Whereas the old rule directed Central Government to consider comments on petition of review by State Government or other authority only new rule is aimed at calling upon all parties including State Government to make their comments in matter and parties are given right to make further comments on those made by other or others - In effect parties are given a right to bring forth material which was not before the State Government - It is easy to see that an unsuccessful party may challenge the grant of a lease in favor of another by pointing out defects or demerits which did not come to the knowledge of State Government - Order in this case does not even purport to show that the comments and counter comments which were before Central Government in this case had been considered - In view of the foregoing we do not find any merit in the third contention raised on behalf of the appellant - This brings us to the last contention raised by that the writ petition should not have been dismissed by the High Court in limine in view of the fact that it contained allegations of mala fides against the respondents – Court are unable to accept this contention - It has been held time and again by this Court that High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the allegations of mala fides if necessary particulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are not given in the writ petition - Keeping in view the well established rule that the burden of establishing mala fides lies very heavily on the person who alleges it and considering all allegations made by the appellant in regard thereto court do not think that they could be considered as sufficient to establish malus animus - High Court was therefore not wrong in dismissing petition in limine on seeing that a prima facie case requiring investigation had not been made out - Appeal dismissed