Back
1962 Supreme(Gau) 74
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Ahmed Hassan
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. No. 7 of 1961
Decided On : 13-09-1962
S. Somorendra Singh, for Petitioner; N. Ibotombi Singh, Government Advocate, for Respondents.
The appointing authority cannot dismiss a civil servant from service. The authority that dismisses a civil servant must be superior to the appointing authority.
Headnote:
ARTICLE 311 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - APPOINTING AUTHORITY - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - CHIEF COMMISSIONER - MANIPUR MERGER AGREEMENT - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1957 - RULE 15 - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Revenue Collection Mohorer, was appointed by the Manipur State Government in 1945. After the integration of Manipur with India in 1949, he continued in service under the Manipur Merger Agreement. In 1959, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on charges of acquiring disproportionate properties, submitting a false income assessment, and violating government conduct rules. An enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner. He appealed to the Chief Commissioner, who reduced the penalty to removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to dismiss the petitioner from service because he was not the appointing authority. The court found that the Chief Commissioner was the appointing authority and that the Deputy Commissioner was subordinate to him. Therefore, the order of dismissal was void under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The court also held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry because he was not given enough time to file his written statement and he was not allowed to cross-examine all of the witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. 2. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to dismiss the petitioner from service because he was not the appointing authority. The court found that the Chief Commissioner was the appointing authority and that the Deputy Commissioner was subordinate to him. Therefore, the order of dismissal was void under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry because he was not given enough time to file his written statement and he was not allowed to cross-examine all of the witnesses.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner.
2. The petitioner has stated as follows in his petition :
He was appointed as a Revenue Collection Mohorer (clerk) on 8th February, 1945, by the then State Government on a scale of pay of Rs. 20 - 45/-. After the integration of Manipur with the Union of India on 15-10-1949, he continued in service under Article VIII of the Manipur Merger Agreement as zilladar (Civil Service) Class III) and no definite order of appointment was made by the Chief Commissioner as far as the petitioner was concerned. Since 1951 he has been serving as Revenue Peshkar to the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur. The Chief Commissioner was the appointing authority of Class III Civil Servants of Manipur, during the first few years after the integration of Manipur State.
In the year 1959, departmental proceedings were started against the petitioner and three charges were framed against him on 13-4-1959, viz., (1) that he had acquired properties worth Rs. 15,000/- and odd between February, 1945 and February, 1958, which was disproportionate to the known sources of his income, (2) that he submitted an assessment of income on 2-11-1957, which was found to be false and (3) that he had willfully acted in contravention of Rule 9 (2) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1935 and Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, in purchasing 36 and ½ bighas of landed property worth Rs. 7,300/- in the name of himself and his son and his wife without the prior sanction of the local Government or Head of the Office. He was given time till 15-4-1959 to submit his written statement to the charges and this was extended on his application up to 25-4-1959 while according to Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, he was entitled to 3 clear weeks. Thus, he was not given reasonable opportunity for his defence.
The petitioner applied for permission to take copies of certain documents which would be necessary for his defence and he was informed on 5-5-1959 that the documents may be inspected in the presence of the E. A. C. As the time for filing his written statement was not extended, he had thus to submit his written statement even before he could take copies of the documents he relied on. Thereafter the Additional District Magistrate, Manipur, was appointed as the Inquiring Officer without any notice to the petitioner and he was asked to appear before the Additional District Magistrate on 9-5-1959, and the enquiry was held on several dates in June, 1959. No person was nominated to present the case in support of the charges and the Additional District Magistrate himself conducted the case. Seven witnesses were examined in the enquiry in support of the charges. But in spite of repeated requests of the petitioner the S. P. (Special Police Establishment) Shillong on whose report the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was set in motion was not examined. The petitioner cited five D. Ws. of whom four alone were examined and the 5th witness Hazi Amanullah who was present before the Inquiring Officer was not examined without giving any reason in writing and thus the petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examine the most important witness in support of the charges and of examining the most important D. W.
On the report dated 22-9-1959 of the Additional District Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 8-12-1959, giving him only six days time for submitting representation against the proposed punishment of dismissal. After he made his representation, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 29-3-1960, dismissing the petitioner fr
