SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Cal) 254

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. P. Mitra
SATISH CHANDRA DAS GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Suit 4665  Of  1951
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 18, 1958

Advocates Appeared:
Arun Sen, K.C.MUKHERJI

The authority competent to appoint and dismiss a government servant is the authority specified in the relevant service rules.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 (1) - APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT - AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO APPOINT AND DISMISS - SECRETARY OR ASSISTANT SECRETARY - BENGAL SUBORDINATE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1936, RULE 4 - BENGAL SECRETARIAT MANUAL, 1941, CHAPTER 1, RULE 3 AND CHAPTER 21, RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a librarian in the West Bengal Secretariat Library, was dismissed from service by an order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. The plaintiff challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that he was dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff was not dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The court found that the plaintiff was appointed as a librarian by the Assistant Secretary to the Education Department, and that he was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. The court held that the Assistant Secretary was the appointing authority for the post of librarian, and that the Deputy Secretary was a superior authority. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff's dismissal was not in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed? 2. Whether the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charges made against him? 3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Enquiring Officer was illegal? 4. Whether the enquiry report was made mala fide? 5. Whether the order of dismissal was passed mala fide? 6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was not dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The court found that the plaintiff was appointed as a librarian by the Assistant Secretary to the Education Department, and that he was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. The court held that the Assistant Secretary was the appointing authority for the post of librarian, and that the Deputy Secretary was a superior authority. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff's dismissal was not in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

S. P. MITRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this suit the plaintiff asks for a declaration that his alleged dismissal was ultra vires, invalid, void, inoperative and of no effect and that he is still the librarian of the West Bengal Secretariat Library of the defendant or an employee of the defendant; re-instatement in office and cancellation of the order of dismissal dated 2-6-1949, payment of salary amounting to Rupees 9,580/15/2; further payments of salary and costs.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case is briefly as follows: on 30-4-1921 the plaintiff was appointed a clerk in the Local Self Government and Education Department of the Bengal Government. The appointment was made by the Secretary to the Local Self Government and Education Department. On 4-5-1924, the plaintiff was appointed Assistant Librarian of the Bengal Secretariat Library. The appointment was made by the Secretary to the Education, Department. On 1-4-1943, the plaintiff was appointed Librarian of the Bengal Secretariat Library. This appointment was also made by the Secretary to the Education Department. On 26-8-1948, a complaint was made against the plaintiff to the Anti-Corruption Department of the West Bengal Government whereupon the plaintiffs house was searched on 30-8-1948. On 8-11-1948, by an order of an under-Secretary to the Government the plaintiff was placed under suspension with effect from the forenoon of 9-11-1948. The Assistant Secretary to the Government in the Home (Political) Department gave to the plaintiff on 17-11-1948, a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service of the Government or otherwise punished setting out the charges against him. The plaintiff on 24-11-1948, furnished an explanation to the charges. On 9-12-1948 the plaintiff was directed to produce his evidence before M. M. De, Assistant Secretary. Home (Political) Department. M. M. De held a perfunctory enquiry on 15-12-1948 and on subsequent dates and submitted a report holding that charges of extreme dishonesty and reckless daring have been proved against the plaintiff. He suggested that the charges, explananation, evidence, exhibits and his report might be seen by an officer of required rank and necessary orders passed. On 11-2-1949, P. C. Acharji, Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, wrote to the plaintiff that the Government had considered the report of the Enquiring Officer and agreed with his findings. The plaintiff was asked to show cause not later than 28-2-1949 why he should not be dismissed from service. On 23-2-1949 the plaintiff showed cause in writing against the proposed dismissal. On 2-6-1949, P. C. Acharji, Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal made an order dismissing the plaintiff from Government service with effect from the 24th May 1949. on grounds of grave misconduct unbecoming of a Government servant and other infringements of Government Servants' Conduct Rules.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the Order dated 2-6-1949 and the report of the Enquiring Officer are mala fide. The order is also invalid on the following grounds:1. The plaintiff was dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. 2. The charges brought before the Assistant Secretary to the Home (Political) Department were not charges brought against the plaintiff in his official capacity and did not involve acts done or alleged to have been done in his official capacity. 3. No particulars of grave misconduct unbecoming of a Government servant or of other infringements of Government Servants' Conduct Rules were given. 4. No opportunity was given to the plaintiff either to show cause against the alleged charges or the action proposed to be taken against him.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff has claimed the reliefs mentioned above. The plaintiff on 14-6-1949 preferred an appeal to the Chief Minister which was rejected on the 21st-24th January 1950. Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served by the plaintiff on 12-9-1951 and this s





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top