Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Banerji and Choudhary JJ.
Karamdeo Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 488 of 1954 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 15, 1956
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 311 - DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT - VALIDITY - CHARGES - ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL TRIAL - AUTHORITY TO DISMISS - PROCEDURE - NOTICE - CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. 1. Where a Government servant is dismissed from service on the basis of charges which were the subject-matters of a criminal trial in which he was acquitted, the order of dismissal is not invalid on the ground that it is based on the same allegations which were the subject-matters of the criminal trial. 2. The Chief Conservator of Forests has the authority to dismiss a Forester, even though the Forester was appointed by the Conservator of Forests. 3. The procedure adopted by the Divisional Forest Officer in referring the matter to the higher authorities for passing the order of dismissal, instead of himself imposing the punishment, is not invalid, where the Divisional Forest Officer had made a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests requesting him not to assume the role of a judge in the case inasmuch as he was the prosecutor in the criminal trial. 4. The failure to give notice to the Government servant of the proposed action with respect to additional charges framed against him, which are minor in comparison with the original charges, does not invalidate the order of dismissal passed against him on the basis of the original charges. 5. Consultation with the Public Service Commission is not necessary before passing an order of dismissal against a Government servant, in view of the proviso to Article 320 (3) of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a forester, was dismissed from service by the Chief Conservator of Forests on the basis of charges framed against him. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal on the grounds that (1) the order was based on charges which were the subject-matters of a criminal trial in which he was acquitted, (2) the Chief Conservator of Forests had no authority to dismiss him, (3) the procedure adopted by the Divisional Forest Officer in referring the matter to the higher authorities for passing the order of dismissal was invalid, (4) no second notice was given to him in respect of the additional charges framed against him, and (5) the order of dismissal was passed without consulting the State Public Service Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that (1) the order of dismissal was not invalid on the ground that it was based on the same allegations which were the subject-matters of the criminal trial, (2) the Chief Conservator of Forests had the authority to dismiss the petitioner, (3) the procedure adopted by the Divisional Forest Officer in referring the matter to the higher authorities for passing the order of dismissal was not invalid, (4) the failure to give notice to the petitioner of the proposed action with respect to additional charges framed against him did not invalidate the order of dismissal, and (5) consultation with the Public Service Commission was not necessary before passing the order of dismissal.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of dismissal was based on charges which were the subject-matters of a criminal trial in which the petitioner was acquitted? 2. Whether the Chief Conservator of Forests had the authority to dismiss the petitioner? 3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Divisional Forest Officer in referring the matter to the higher authorities for passing the order of dismissal was invalid? 4. Whether the failure to give notice to the petitioner of the proposed action with respect to additional charges framed against him invalidated the order of dismissal? 5. Whether consultation with the Public Service Commission was necessary before passing the order of dismissal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of dismissal was not invalid on the ground that it was based on the same allegations which were the subject-matters of the criminal trial, because the charges framed in the criminal trial related only to one of the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, and the other charges made against him in the departmental enquiry did not appear to be the subject-matters of the criminal trial. 2. The Chief Conservator of Forests had the authority to dismiss the petitioner, because the petitioner was appointed by the Conservator of Forests, who was subordinate to the Chief Conservator of Forests. 3. The procedure adopted by the Divisional Forest Officer in referring the matter to the higher authorities for passing the order of dismissal was not invalid, because the Divisional Forest Officer had made a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests requesting him not to assume the role of a judge in the case inasmuch as he was the prosecutor in the criminal trial. 4. The failure to give notice to the petitioner of the proposed action with respect to additional charges framed against him did not invalidate the order of dismissal, because the additional charges were minor in comparison with the original charges, and the original charges alone were enough to persuade the authority to dismiss the petitioner. 5. Consultation with the Public Service Commission was not necessary before passing the order of dismissal, because the proviso to Article 320 (3) of the Constitution exempts the authority from consulting the Public Service Commission in disciplinary matters affecting a person serving the Government in a civil capacity.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Choudhary, J.
1. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India for quashing the order of dismissal passed against him by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar (Opposite Party No. 2) on 20-7-1954.
2. The petitioner was appointed a forester by the Conservator of Forests in the year 1946, and in December, 1950, was placed in charge of Kodalibad Beat with Head quarters at Thalkobad in the Saranda Division of Forests in the District of Singhbhum. On 14-7-1952, the divisional Forest Officer framed certain charges against him and he was called upon to give his explanation with regard to them. He, accordingly, submitted his explanation on 29-4-1952.
In the meantime on 21-4-1952, the Divisional Forest Officer filed a petition of complaint against him and some other persons before the Sub-divisional Officer, Chaibassa, and they were put on trial under Ss. 409 and 120B, Penal Code and Sec.26, Indian Forest Act. On 31-3-1953, the criminal case ended in favour of the petitioner; he was acquitted.
Thereafter, on 27-4-1953, he applied for his reinstatement, whereupon he was informed by the Divisional Forest Officer on 4-5-1953, that the enquiry started on the charges framed against him on 14-4-1952, shall proceed and he was directed to attend the same on 21-5-1953. He, therefore, put in an objection that the above charges were dealt with and found not to have been established in the criminal trial and as such, no departmental enquiry could be held on those very charges.
This objection was overruled and he was asked to attend the enquiry which was fixed to be held on 23-5-1953. He, thereafter, declined to take part in it and it was held on that date in Ms absence. From the papers produced before us by the learned Government Pleader it appears thaG before the above date the petitioner had written to the Divisional Forest Officer that as he was the prosecutor in the criminal case referred to above, he should not assume the role of a Judge in this enquiry.
The Divisional Forest Officer, in view of this representation, submitted his findings on the charges levelled against the petitioner to the Conservator of Forests on 12-6-1954, who disagreed with the view taken by him and referred the matter to the Chief Conservator of Forests. The latter agreed with the view taken by the Divisional Forest Officer and provisionally decided to dismiss the petitioner from Government service.
On 1-3-1954, therefore, the Conservator of Forests acting under the Orders of the Chief Conservator of Forests asked the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed. On the same date it was intimated to the petitioner that certain further charges were framed against him on 19-2-1954 and he was asked to submit his explanation with regard to the same.
On 9-3-1954, he showed cause which was forwarded to the Chief Conservator of Forests on 24-3-1954 with comments of the Divisional Forest Officer thereon. The Chief Conservator of Forests found the charges framed against the petitioner on 14-4-1952, and 19-2-1954, established and passed an order dismissing him on 20-7-1954. He has, therefore, prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the above order of the Chief Conservator of Forests.
3. The first point taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal in question was based substantially on the allegations which were the subject matters of the charges in the criminal trial in which he was acquitted, but, in law, they could not be valid grounds for his dismissal. In order to appreciate this point, it will be necessary to notice as to what were the charges in the criminal trial and on what charges the order of dismissal was passed. The charges-that were originally framed against the petitioner by the Divisional Forest Officer on 14-4-1952, were as follows:
"1. In his diary for 30-12-1951, the Forester has shown his journey to K.P.17 and to have spent the night at Naogaon, returning t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
