The Court held that a government servant can be removed from service for misconduct in the discharge of his official duties, including acquiring property disproportionate to his known sources of income and submitting a false statement of assets.

In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, as the case may be, the order of the Chief Commissioner respondent No. 1, dated 22-1-1964 removing the petitioner from service.

2. The facts leading up to this writ petition are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Collection Muhorar on 8-2-1945 on the scale of pay of Rs. 20-45 in the erstwhile State of Manipur. He was absorbed in the service of Government of Manipur after the integration of the State of Manipur with Union of India on 15-10-1949. From 1951 to 13-4-1959 the petitioner held the post of the Revenue Peshkar to the Deputy Commissioner. In the year 1959, the Deputy Commissioner Started departmental proceedings against the petitioner. On 13-4-1959, he framed 3 charges against him. In that enquiry all the charges were alleged to have been proved against the petitioner, therefore, he was dismissed from service on 20-3-60. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Commissioner, Manipur and the Chief Commissioner partly accepted the appeal and reduced the penalty of dismissal to one of removal from service by his order dated 28-3-1961. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Application No. 7 of 1961, praying for a writ of certiorari before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground inter alia that the Deputy Commissioner was not the appointing authority and as such the impugned order of removal from service violated the mandatory provisions of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution of India. This Court accepted the above contention and quashed the orders by a writ of certiorari by the order dated 13-9-1962. Thereafter, on 7-5-63, the Chief Commissioner, Manipur as the Disciplinary Authority drew up another departmental proceeding against the petitioner and he framed the following 3 charges against him :

(1) The petitioner while functioning as clerk (Peshkar) in the Manipur Administration during the period from February, 1945 to February, 1958 committed misconduct in the discharge of his official duties inasmuch us he, during the said period, acquired property worth Rs. 15,320 which was disproportionate to the known sources of his income,

(2) The petitioner, while functioning in the aforesaid office, committed misconduct in the discharge of his official duties inasmuch as he submitted a statement of assets on 2-11-1957 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Manipur, which was found to be false, and

(3) During the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the petitioner wilfully acted in contravention of R. 9(2) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules 1935 and Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 inasmuch as he purchased about 36½ bighas of landed property, worth about Rs. 7,300 in his name, and in the name of his son Firoz Ahmed Malik, and wife Piarijan, without previous sanction either of the local Government or the Head of his office.

The petitioner was called upon to file his written statement of defence in answer to the charges within 3 weeks from the receipt of the memorandum containing the above charges. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the memorandum on 9-5-1963. The Chief Commissioner thereafter by an order No. 1/8/63-OMV dated 6-7-1963, appointed Shri S. Singson, E. A. C. (Departmental Enquiries), Manipur Secretariate, as the Enquiry Officer. The Chief Commissioner by another Order No. 1/8/63-OMV dated 6-7-1963, nominated Shri S.K. Deb, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Shillong to present the case in support of the case before the Enquiry Officer, The petitioner filed written statement of defence on 12-6-1963. Before filing the written statement he filed application to the Chief Commissioner for inspection of record and taking extracts therefrom. His request was allowed. After the