Back
1957 Supreme(AP) 156
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
B. John Bunyan
Versus
State of A. P.
Writ Petn. No. 1092 of 1956
Decided On : 14-08-1957
C. Natarajan, for Petitioner; Government Pleader (Telangana), for Respondents.
The essential requirement under Art. 311(2) is that the member of a service should be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against any action proposed, that is, he must be told what the charge or charges against him are and the materials upon which the charge has been framed and given him an opportunity to answer those charges after which he must be asked to show cause against the proposed action to be taken against him.
Headnote:
CIVIL SERVICES - DISMISSAL - ENQUIRY - AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO HOLD ENQUIRY - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1952, R. 14 - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1955, SCH. III - NATURAL JUSTICE - ENQUIRY OFFICER - BIAS - SUSPENSION - VALIDITY - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1952, R. 16.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Supervisor in the service of the City Improvement Board, was charged with irregularities and shortage in materials. An enquiry was conducted by the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, and the petitioner was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal order on the grounds that the enquiry was not conducted by the competent authority, that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, that the enquiry officers were biased, and that the suspension order was invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the enquiry was conducted by the competent authority, that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, that there was no evidence of bias on the part of the enquiry officers, and that the suspension order was valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry was conducted by the competent authority? 2. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself? 3. Whether the enquiry officers were biased? 4. Whether the suspension order was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the enquiry was conducted by the competent authority, as the Minister, Local Government, had appointed the Superintending Engineer as the enquiring officer to assist him in the enquiry and upon whose report he had acted. The Rules of 1952 did not require that the appointing authority should itself make the enquiry. 2. The court held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, as he was served with a charge-sheet, given time to prepare his defence, and allowed to examine the records and call witnesses. 3. The court held that there was no evidence of bias on the part of the enquiry officers, as the petitioner's allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and the officers had acted in good faith. 4. The court held that the suspension order was valid, as it was issued by the appointing authority and the petitioner had been suspended for more than six months due to the pendency of the enquiry.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. : -
This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other direction quashing the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 12-1-1956. The petitioner was a Supervisor in the service of the City Improvement Board which is under the Local Self-Government Department of the Government of Hyderabad. He has to his credit a service of twenty years.
In the discharge of his duties as a Supervisor it was found that there had been certain irregularities and shortage in materials cement etc. regarding which charges were framed by the Superintending Engineer on 20-5-1953. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Executive Engineer who on 2-7-1953 recommended the case to be closed.
The petitioner alleges that the case was closed and later after a lapse of one year, the same charges were repeated by the same Executive Engineer on 21-4-1954, an oral enquiry was held and in spite of the fact that the petitioner asked for the assistance of one Swaminathan, Assistant Accountant, that request was denied and no reasonable opportunity to defend was given under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
He further alleged that the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer both took upon themselves as enquiry officers to individually call upon the petitioner for an oral enquiry; that the Secretary of the Local Self-Government also took upon himself to be a third enquiry officer and under the circumstances the entire proceedings were illegal. The petitioner also alleged that he was suspended by an order of the Secretary of the Local Self Government under R. 16 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1955 and was kept under suspension for two years before the final disposal of the case, which is also alleged to be illegal and mala fide.
2. The Government ill its counter stated in detail that on December 22, 1952 the Executive Engineer, C. I. B., inspected the section of the petitioner and found that he has neither maintained the Muster Rolls for the year 1952-53, nor maintained the stock register of raw materials such as sand, lime, gum, jute, etc., that through his memo dated 20-12-1952 he sought the permission for disbursement to labour of Rs. 2,420/-, but when the actual disbursement was made by the Executive Engineer the total amount came to only O. S. Rs. 1,785/-; and that a number of bogus entries were also found.
The Executive Engineer consequently through his letter No. 5736 dated 24-12-1952 called for the explanation of the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer consequent upon a report published in the Iqdam News Paper dated 21-3-1953 alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated thousands of rupees in connection with the alterations of Special Quarters at Agapura and had earned about Rs. 40,000/- etc., called for a report from the Executive Engineer.
The Secretary, Local Self Government also had written to the Superintending Engineer to submit his report in the matter. The petitioner submitted a reply to the letter of the Executive Engineer referred to above on 30-4-1953. He also submitted another application to the Superintending Engineer on 6-5-1953 enclosing a copy of the reply submitted to the Executive Engineer on 30-4-1953.
After receiving this explanation a detailed charge sheet was served on the petitioner through the Executive Engineer, Hyderabad Municipality where the petitioner had been transferred on 22-5-1953. Thereafter the petitioner requested for time on 25-5-1953 for 15 days in order to submit his reply which request was granted. On 8-6-1953 the petitioner submitted his reply to the Executive Engineer and the same day it was forwarded by him to the Superintending Engineer C. I. B.
The Executive Engineer C. I. B. was asked by the Superintending Engineer to offer his comments thereon and he recommended the case to be closed on 2-7-1953 which recommendation was accordingly made by the Superintending Engineer on 2-11-1
