A probationary officer is entitled to a second notice under Article 311(2) before the final order of discharge is passed against him.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner, Punit Lall Shah, has obtained a rule for an appropriate writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Eihar, to show cause why its order, dated the 3rd September, 1955 (Annexure C), to his application, discharging him from service, should not be quashed.

2. The opposite party has shown cause through the Government Advocate against the rule, and also filed a counter-affidavit.

3. The petitioner was appointed a temporary Sub-Deputy Collector on the 6th December, 1947. Thereafter, on the 4th June 1949, he was appointed to a substantive post in the Bihar. Subordinate Civil Service on probation. On the 22nd February, 1954, the petitioner was served with a letter by the Government of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, to show cause, within one month of the receipt of the order, why his services should not be terminated forthwith for the reasons given in this letter.

4. This letter is Annexure A, and, is in the following terms:

Confidential No. 1632A.

Government of Bihar

Appointment Department.

From

V/s. Balasubrahmanyan, Esqr.

I. A. S. Addl. Under Secretary to Government.

To

The District Magistrate,

Purnea. Dated, Purnea,

the 22nd February, 1954.

Subject-- Allegations against Mr. Punit Lal Sahu Sub-Deputy Collector employed as Circle Officer at Purnea.

Sir,

I am directed to say that the Annual Confidential reports on Mr. Punit Lal Sahu, Sub-Deputy Collector for the years 1949 and 1950-51 show that he had a very bad reputation. Enquiries made by the Anti-Corruption Department revealed evidence to suspect that Mr. Sahu was corrupt. The following are some of the cases in which Mr. Sahus conduct was suspicious.

(i) In rent commutation case No. 243 of 1947-48 in which Gajanand Misser was the opposite party, arguments were heard on 22nd February, 1049, 28th February, 1949, was fixed for orders, but the Judgment was actually delivered on 30th May, 1949. The delay in passing orders appears to be due to the fact that in the meantime negotiations for bribe were going on between the party and Mr. Sahu.

(ii) In case No. 184 of 1948-49 a sum of Rs. 130/- was paid by Sri Sadanand Boy to Mr. Sahu. The statement of Sadanand Roy is supported by Sri Bulanand Singh who was present at the time the payment was made. Nityanand Roy, a partner of Sadanand Roy has stated that he gave Rs. 750/- and his share out of Rs. 150/- paid to Mr. Sahu.

(iii) In 11 cases bearing Nos. 117 to 127 of 1948-49 the tenant had prayed for commutation of rent in respect of about 200 bighas of land. It appears that in all these cases, orders were passed in favour of the landlord after acceptance of bribe. Case No. 125 (ii) of 1947-48 against the same landlord was decided in favour of the landlord. Mr. Sahu kept this case pending for about two years and delivered judgment after two months of hearing of arguments in favour of the landlord. It appears that the landlord paid him Rs. 1500/-in cash and also two rings.

(iv) Gorku Mandal, of village Rampur P. S. Araria filed a rent suit bearing No, 130 of 1949-50 against the landlord Mostt. Mojidan for commutation of rent. Sri Bibhutibhusan Das Gupta of Araria claimed that he had purchased the said land from Mosst. Mojidan and was in possession of it. It appears Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta paid Rs. 1500/- as against Rs. 250/- paid by Mr. Darogi Mandal who was a co-applicant. The applicants case was di