Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Dr.Tribhuwan Nath
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal from Original Decree No. 706 of ;
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 935 of 1956 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 01, 1959
PUBLIC SERVANT - Removal from service - Enquiry under Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Reasonable opportunity to show cause - Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55 - Applicability - Bias and prejudice of Enquiry Officer - Admissibility of evidence - Scope of judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Civil Assistant Surgeon, was removed from service and permanently debarred from re-appointment after an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, found him guilty of submitting a false post-mortem report. He challenged the validity of the enquiry and the order of removal, contending that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, that the enquiry was biased and prejudiced, and that irrelevant and inadmissible evidence was admitted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself at both the enquiry stage and the stage of show-cause notice, and that the enquiry was conducted fairly and justly without bias or prejudice. The Court also held that the evidence admitted by the Enquiry Officer was relevant and admissible, and that the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer was supported by evidence. The Court further held that the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, were not applicable to the case as the enquiry was conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and that the order of removal was not invalid merely because it imposed a bar against future employment.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry stage and the stage of show-cause notice? 2. Whether the enquiry was conducted fairly and justly without bias or prejudice? 3. Whether the evidence admitted by the Enquiry Officer was relevant and admissible? 4. Whether the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer was supported by evidence? 5. Whether the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, were applicable to the case? 6. Whether the order of removal was invalid merely because it imposed a bar against future employment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. 2. An enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, is not subject to the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the enquiry officer has the discretion to admit evidence which he considers relevant and admissible. 3. The scope of judicial review in cases of removal from service is limited to examining whether the constitutional requirements have been satisfied, and the Court cannot set aside the order of the enquiry officer merely because it disagrees with his findings on facts or law.
Final Decision: The appeal and the miscellaneous judicial case were dismissed.
Kanhaiya Singh, J.
1. The appeal and the miscellaneous judicial case arise out of the same matter and will be disposed of in one judgment. The appeal is by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by him against the State Government for a declaration that the order of the latter removing him from the State Medical Service and permanently debarring him from re-appointment in service is illegal, ultra vires, void and wrongful and that he should be deemed to be continuing in service of the defendant as Civil Assistant Surgeon.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal and the petition are these: The plaintiff is a Medical Graduate (M. B. B. S.) of the Patna University and was appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon under the Government of Bihar on 17-9-1947 on a permanent basis. Ho was posted at Jehanabad as Civil Assistant Surgeon and was put in charge of the sub-divisional hospital.
While he was at Jehanabad an incident took place. On the morning of 10-4-1951 chaukidar Amawas Ahir of village Mainpur, police station Arwal, in the district of Gaya, received an information that a man was lying dead in a mango orchard in village Belaon with several injuries on his person. The chaukidar went to the spot and found the dead body there in that orchard with several injuries. The deceased was subsequently identified as Ramdhani Mahto of Belaon within Arwal Police station.
The chaukidar went to Arwal police station and lodged the first information report stating that the deceased had several bhala and geransa injuries, that his intestines had come out and that there was copious blood on the spot. The Sub-inspector of Arwal police station, Sheopujan Singh, went to the place of occurrence, reaching there at 2 P. M., and found Ramdhani lying on the right side with face downwards in a pool of dried-up blood.
He also found many cut injuries on the body. He prepared an inquest report in presence of witnesses and also a sketch map. He forwarded the dead body of Ramdhani with Abdul Wahid Khan dafadar for post mortem examination. The dead body was taken to Jehanabad morgue with a chalan and the inquest report of the police on 11-4-.1951, and the plaintiff was required to hold postmortem examination of the said dead body.
The plaintiff conducted the post-mortem examination on the same day at 4 P.M. and found that there were 22 wounds on the dead body and all the soft parts including the wind pipe and the great vessels of the right side of the neck were cut along with the fourth cervical vertebra. From the nature of the injuries and other indications obtained therefrom the plaintiff gave the opinion that the injuries were post-mortem, and no opinion as to the cause of death could be given. The Sub-inspector or Arwal investigated the case, and since the culprits had not been named, he eventually submitted final report.
3. It appears that some suspicion arose about the correctness of the opinion given by the plaintiff, and about five days after the plaintiff gave his opinion on 16-4-1951, the then Sub-inspector, Jehanabad. submitted a confidential report to the then Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad, making certain insinuations against the plaintiff. The Sub-divisional Officer contacted the plaintiff and made certain enquiries.
The plaintiff asserted before him that all the injuries on the corpse of Kamdhani were postmortem and could not be ante-mortem and that there was no question of "post-mortem" having been mentioned in the post-mortem report for "antemortem" by slip of pen. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya, was not satisfied about the correctness and bona fides of his report and referred the matter to the Government in the Anti-Corruption department.
The allegations against him were investigated by the said department, and it transpired during the course of the investigation that the post-mortem report had been procured from the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1800. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Anti-Corruption depar
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
