The court emphasized that departmental enquiries are not governed by strict rules of evidence and that the denial of permission to engage a legal practitioner should be decided based on the facts of the particular case.

Hegde, J.

1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (mere appropriately it should be a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution), the petitioner challenges the legality of the order passed by the Government in No. FD 3 CSE 60, dated 22 September, 1962, hereinafter called "the impugned order." By means of that order, the Government of Mysore (respondent 1) reduced the petitioner to the minimum of the grade of second division clerk for a period of three years after finding him guilty of charges 2 and 3 of the charges framed against him on 15 December, 1961.

2. The facts of this case lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner was a first division clerk in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Davangere, in the month of December 1959. In December he took one month's leave and came to Bangalore. On 26 December, 1959 he is said to have gone to the shop of one S. M. Seetharamayya (P.W. 1.) in Bangalore and told him that an anonymous petition (Ex. P. 1) had been sent against him to the Commercial Tax Officer alleging that he was evading sale-tax and that the same had been endorsed to him by the Commercial Tax Officer for enquiry. It is further alleged that the petitioner told P.W. 1, that in case he paid him Rs. 500 he would see that the matter is closed. The case for the State is that on that day P.W. 1 paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 15 and told him that the balance amount would be paid to the petitioner on 28 December, 1959. On 28 December, 1959, the petitioner approached P.W. 1 to collect the balance amount. But in the meanwhile P.W. 1 had informed the anticorruption police about the demand made by the petitioner. P.W. 8, Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Department, arranged a trap. Fifteen marked 10-rupee currency notes were handed over to P.W. 1 to be given to the petitioner in case he approached him for the balance amount demanded; when the petitioner approached P.W. 1 on 28 December, 1952, P.W. 1 gave him those currency notes. Unaware of the trap laid against him, the petitioner put those currency notes in his pocket. Immediately P.W. 8 and others rushed to the spot and caught hold of the petitioner. The currency notes in question were recovered from the petitioner. A mahazar was immediately prepared at the spot for the recovery of the notes in question. Thereafter, the petitioner took P.W. 8 and others to his house and produced before them Ex. P. 1, the anonymous petition said to have been made use of against P.W. 1.

On receipt of the report from the Anticorruption Department, the Government decided to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer framed three charges against the petitioner. They are :

(1) that he fabricated Ex. P. 1;

(2) that he received a sum of Rs. 15 from P.W. 1 on 26 December, 1959 as bribe; and

(3) that he received a bride of Rs. 150 from P.W. 1 on 23 December, 1959.

3. The enquiry officer, at the end of the enquiry, came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient proof to hold that the petitioner had fabricated Ex. P. 1. On the other two charges, he held against the petitioner. On receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the Government passed the impugned order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to make representation as against the report made by the enquiry officer. The impugned order has been assailed on two grounds, viz.,

(1) that the enquiry officer had cast the burden of disproving the case on the petitioner, whereas he should have placed the burden for proving the case on the State; and (2) that the petitioner had not been given reasonable opportunity for putting forward his defence.

4. There is absolutely no substance in the first grievance. We have been taken through the report of the enquiry officer. He has believed the testimony of P.W. 1, the complainant, P.W. 8, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and P.Ws. 2, 5 and 6, the mahazer witnesses. Further, he has conside