The competent authority is required to act judicially in exercise of its power under Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. This postulates that before any action adverse to the interests of the government servant concerned is taken, he must be given a reasonable and adequate opportunity to show cause against the action to be taken against him.

Headnote:
BOMBAY CIVIL SERVICES RULES - RULE 152 - SUSPENSION - REINSTATEMENT - PAY AND ALLOWANCES - TREATMENT OF PERIOD OF SUSPENSION - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - PENALTY - JUDICIAL APPROACH - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Revenue Inspector, was suspended from service on 3-9-1957, on charges of corruption. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18-2-1959. The Government, on examining the report, concluded that the charges against the petitioner had not been conclusively proved and ordered his reinstatement with effect from 23-3-1960. The period of suspension was treated as leave due and admissible followed by extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner challenged the legality of the order, contending that he was not given an opportunity to make any representation against the order and that the order was in the nature of a penalty which could not be imposed under the rules.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order passed by the Government was illegal and liable to be quashed. The Court interpreted Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules and held that the competent authority is required to act judicially in exercise of its power under that rule. This postulates that before any action adverse to the interests of the government servant concerned is taken, he must be given a reasonable and adequate opportunity to show cause against the action to be taken against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed? 2. Whether the impugned order was in the nature of a penalty which could not be imposed under the rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. The Court observed that the petitioner was not even given a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer before the order was passed. The Court held that the competent authority is bound to give an opportunity to the government servant concerned to show as to why a finding of non-exoneration should not be recorded against him or even to show that he is entitled to be considered as fully exonerated. 2. The Court held that the impugned order was in the nature of a penalty which could not be imposed under the rules. The Court observed that the order resulted in pecuniary loss to the petitioner and deprived him of a substantial amount of money in the shape of pay and allowances payable to him. The Court held that such an order must amount to punishment.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The order dated 26-2-1960 passed by respondent No. 1 directing the intervening period between suspension and reinstatement should be treated as leave due and admissible followed by extraordinary leave without pay, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs.

JudgmentAbhyankar, J.

1. This is a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed as Revenue Inspector on 7-12-1946 in the then State of Madhya Pradesh. He was confirmed in that capacity on 7-12-1948. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records. He was confirmed as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records by the orders of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 31-10-1956. The petitioners services were allocated to the new reorganised Stale of Bombay. The petitioner was at Nagpur when he received an order dated 3-9-1957 from the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records. By that order the petitioner was suspended from service from the date of receipt of the order. The order gave certain other directions as follows:

(1) That during the period of suspension he should be paid only the subsistence and other allowances admissible under the B. C. S. Rules, i.e. Bombay Civil Services Rules.

(2) That the petitioner should not leave his Headquarters without the previous permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara.

(3) That the petitioner is not allowed to accept any private employment or to do any business while under suspension. If he accepts private employment or does any business while under suspension, he will be deemed to be guilty of misconduct and will be liable to be dealt with accordingly and he would forfeit his claim to any subsistence allowance.

2. There is a note added below the order that the Government have ordered to hold a Departmental Enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner on the charge of corruption and as ordered by the Government he is suspended from service. The Departmental Enquiry was to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara.

3. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, served a notice on the petitioner on 18-1-1958. By this notice, the petitioner was called upon to put in a written statement of defence in respect oi the two charges men tioned in the notice. The charges were as under:

(1) That while you were working as an officiating Assistant Superintendent of Land Records (Nistar at Bhandara) you demanded Rs. 50/- and accepted Rs. 25/-as illegal gratification from one Bhuna alias Bapu Atmya Uka, Kumbhar of mauza Kelwad, tahsil Sakoli for a promise given by you for recording certain lands of mouza Kelwad in his name.

(2) That you demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from one Naklu Shiwa Mahar, resident of Kelwad, tahsil Saholi, for recording lands of that mouza in his name.

A statement of the allegations on the basis of which the charges were framed was attached to the memorandum from the Deputy Commissioner. By a subsequent order from the Government the enquiry was entrusted to Shri B. N. Sathaye, Personal Assistant to the Collector Bhandara. The petitioner, it is alleged, appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held an enquiry and submitted his report on 18-2-1959. That report is to be found at pages 14 to 31 of the Paper book before us.

4. The petitioners allegation is that the Enquiry Officer or the Government or the Collector did not inform him about the nature of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was not also supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. In fact, the petitioner did not receive any communication from any authorities till the Government issued an order on 26-2-1960. That order is Document No. 4 at page 32 of the record, and is in the following terms:

"* * * * *

On examining the report of the Enquiry Officer appointed under G. M. R. D. dated 24th May 1956, referred to in the preamble. Government has come to the conclusion that the charges framed against Shri V. R. Gokhale, Ex-Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Bhandara (under suspension) have not been conclusively proved. Government is therefore pleased to direct that Shri Gokhale should be reinstated in service immediately and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document