Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The appellant was appointed as a Kanungo in 1947 and was confirmed in that post in 1947. In June, 1952 while he was working in Supaul sub-division he was placed under suspension on the basis of certain allegations of corruption made against him by one Abdul Aziz. The appellant and one Baldeo Prasad who was working as a khas Mahal Tahsildar were prosecuted in special case No. 9 of 1954 but by his judgment dated February 17, 1955, the learned Special Judge, Bhagalpur, acquitted them on the ground that the charges of corruption were not established on the evidence led in the case.

2. In September 1956 a departmental proceeding was instituted against the appellant under the orders passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur on three different charges. The first charge related to the making of certain interpolations and mutilations of certain entries in official documents. The second charge with which we are principally concerned in this appeal reads thus:

"That you in the capacity of a kanungo made improper recommendations for settlement of Khas Mahal lands of holding Nos. 158, 159, 161 and 163 in favour of Jagdish Jha of Balha, Abhimanu Jha of Parsa, Raghunandan Prasad of Bhimpur and Janardhan Thakur of Balha, respectively in the Rent Roll of 1949-50."

3. The Commissioner directed the District Magistrate, Saharsa to hold a departmental enquiry and submit the report. The District Magistrate, however, forwarded the papers to the Addl. District Magistrate for holding the departmental enquiry. Several documents were produced and several witnesses were examined before the Additional District Magistrate who by his report dated May, 25, 1961 held that the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt in respect of charge No. 1, that charge No. 3 was not proved but that charge No. 2 was fully proved. The Addl. District Magistrate recommended that the petitioner may be let off with an order of censure since it did not appear that his action was mala fide.

4. The Commissioner appears to have entertained doubt regarding the regularity of the departmental enquiry held by the District Magistrate since he, on his own part, had directed the District Magistrate himself to hold the enquiry. He, therefore, directed the collector once again to take fresh proceedings. When the appellant was informed of this, he gave a statement in writing that he waived his right for a de novo enquiry and prayed that a decision should be arrived at on the basis of the evidence which was already recorded by the Addl, District Magistrate.

5. While forwarding the report of the enquiry officer to the Commissioner, the Collector disagreed with the Addl. District Magistrate and held that all the three charges were proved. By an order dated November 20, 1961 the Commissioner held that charges 1 and 2 were established and stating that he was tentatively of the view that the appellant should be dismissed from service, he issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The Commissioner asked the appellant to submit his explanation through the Addl. District Magistrate, Saharsa, and intimated to him that the latter would transmit the representation of the appellant with his own comments through the Collector, who also would offer his comments on the representation. The appellant showed cause against the proposed punishment whereupon further comments were made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector on the appellants representation. The Addl. Collector changed his original view and by his recommendation dated February 8, 1962 stated that all the three charges were fully established and that the conduct of the petitioner was mala fide which would justify the punishment of dismissal from service. On March 6, 1962 the Commissioner passed an order dismissing the appellant from service.

6. The appellant then filed an appeal to the Board of Revenue which was heard by an Addl. Member of that Board. By his judgment