The provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution are not mandatory and that non-compliance with those provisions does not afford a cause of action to a public servant in a Court of law.

Judgment

SINHA

( 1 ) THESE two cross-appeals on certificates granted by the High Court under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution, arise out of a common judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in two writ petitions Nos. 121 and 817 of 1953, dated 8/01/1954, allowing in part and dismissing in part, the two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, reducing him in rank, and ordering his compulsory retirement from service. Civil appeal No. 27 has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Civil appeal No. 28 by the petitioner in the Court below. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the State of Uttar Pradesh as the appellant and the petitioner in the High Court - Sri Manbodhan Lal Srivastava - as the respondent, in the course of this judgment which covers both the appeals.

( 2 ) IT is necessary to state the following facts : In 1920, the respondent was employed in the education department of the State of Utter Pradesh, and in due course, was promoted to the United Provinces Education Service (Junior Scale ). This took place in 1946. In the year 1948, the respondent was appointed an officer-on-special duty and managing editor of a quarterly journal issued by the education department, under the style shiksha. While holding the post of officer-on-special duty, the respondent was also appointed a member of the Book Selection Committee. He continued to function as such until 1951.

THE respondents conduct as a member of that Committee, was not found to be satisfactory and above board; inasmuch as it was discovered that he had allowed his private interests to come in conflict with his public duties. He was found to have shown favours in the selection of books on approved list, in respect of certain books said to have been written by a nephew of his, aged only 14 years, and by another relation of his, as also to firm of publishers who had advanced certain sums of money to him on interest. In July, 1952, the respondent was transferred as Head-master of a certain High School, but he did not join his post and went on leave on medical grounds. While on leave, the respondent was suspended from service with effect from 2/08/1952.

IN September, the same year, the Director of Education issued orders, framing charges against the respondent and calling upon him to submit his written statement of defence and giving him an opportunity to call evidence in support of it. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case, to set out the charges framed against him except to state that the details of the books, said to have been written by his prodigy nephew and his other relation, were given, the gravamen of the charges being that he did not inform the Committee of his relationship with the alleged authors of the books, the selection of which was calculated to bring pecuniary benefit to those relations. Another charge related to his having benefited a certain firm of publishers whose books, about a dozen in number, had been selected by the Committee of which he was a member.

THE respondent submitted a lengthy written statement in his defence and did not insist on oral examination of witnesses, but enclosed with his explanation, certain affidavits in support of his case. The Director of Education, after a thorough inquiry into the charges framed against the respondent, submitted a report to the effect that the charges framed against him had been substantially proved. He recommended that the respondent be demoted to the Subordinate Education Service and be compulsorily retired. After considering the report aforesaid, the Government decided on 7/11/1952, to call upon the respondent, under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, to show cause why the punishment suggested in the departmental inquiry report, should not be imposed upon him.

IN pursuance of the show-cause-notice served upon the respondent on 1