Back
Manipur High Court
BRIJ NARAIN, J.
Sarangthem Nodiachand Singh
Versus
State of Manipur
Civil Misc. (Writ) Appln. No. 1 of 1956
Decided On : 20-02-1956
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 311(2) - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Jailor, was placed under suspension and subsequently prosecuted on charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. He was discharged by the Magistrate, and the revision petition filed against the order of discharge was also dismissed. However, the petitioner was not reinstated as Jailor but was appointed as Additional Inspector of Excise on the presumptive pay of his substantive post. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, and he was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated as Jailor, Manipur Jail and to have the arrears of pay and allowances paid to him, but by means of the order dated 1-9-1955, he was not re-instated to IMS own post, but was appointed to act until further orders as Additional Inspector of Excise on the presumptive pay of his substantive post, vide Ext. 7. The provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India were not complied with nor was the petitioner given any opportunity to show cause against the proposed reduction in rank.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was promoted to a higher post or reduced in rank by the order dated 1-9-1955? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated as Jailor under Rule 112 of the Assam Jail Manual? 3. Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether the order of dismissal was passed in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India? 5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be consulted by the Union Public Service Commission under Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was reduced in rank by the order dated 1-9-1955, as he was made to work on a non-Gazetted post when formerly his post as Jailor of Manipur Jail had the rank of a Gazetted Officer. 2. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated as Jailor under Rule 112 of the Assam Jail Manual, as he was acquitted of the criminal charges against him and the Inspector General of Prisons did not pass any order against him. 3. The Court held that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. A.C. Kapoor, whose remarks were used against him in the enquiry. 4. The Court held that the order of dismissal was passed in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. 5. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be consulted by the Union Public Service Commission under Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India, as the disciplinary action against him involved a reduction in rank.
Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of certiorari and set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 27-10-1955 passed by respondent 2. The petitioner was legally deemed to have acted throughout as Jailor, Manipur Jail.
This is an application for obtaining a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner S. Nodiachand Singh, was Jailor, Imphal from 1-3-1951 to 21-10-1954 and he was placed under suspension from 22-10-1954 and eventually prosecuted in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Manipur, on charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts under Ss. 409 and 477-A, I.P.C.
The charges against the petitioner related to alleged falsification of the accounts maintained in the Jail by causing false entries to be made regarding sale of mustard seeds, mustard oil and oil cakes etc. In the course of the Police investigation which preceded the trial of the said criminal case, the police seized from the custody of the Assistant Jailor, among other papers, a credit note signed by the petitioner which was in the following terms :-
"Assistant Jailor i/c. Store.
Please make entry in stock book.
As I have purchased 50 maunds of mustard oil on credit.
Pay disbursing officer is hereby authorised to deduct Rs. 50/- rupees fifty per month from my salary until it covers the price of the oil.
Sd/- Nodiachand Singh,
Jailor.
1-7-1954."
2. The petitioner, was after a lengthy trial, discharged by the learned Additional District Magistrate on 10-6-1955 under S. 253, Criminal P.C., With the findings that the prosecution was an out and out conspiracy and it had hopelessly failed to produce any materials worth of credit for substantiating the charge; vide annexure-B, Ext. B, dated 10-6-1955.
A Revision Case No. 14 of 1955 was filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner against this order of discharge, but the revision application under S. 439, Cr. P.C. was also rejected and it was held by this Court on 17-8-1955 that the prosecution had entirely failed to make out any prima facie case against the petitioner, vide annexure-"C" Ext. 3. According to the petitioner, he became entitled to be re-instated as Jailor, Manipur Jail and to have the arrears of pay and allowances paid to him, but by means of the order dated 1-9-1955, he was not re-instated to IMS own post, but was appointed to act until further orders as Additional Inspector of Excise on the presumptive pay of his substantive post, vide Ext. 7. The provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India were not complied with nor was the petitioner given any opportunity to show cause against the proposed reduction in rank. Before the petitioner had time to realise his position that he had been made to work on a non-Gazetted post when formerly his post as Jailor of Manipur Jail had the rank of a Gazetted Officer, respondent 2 drew up a charge memo dated 9-9-1955, Ext. 4 (annexure-"D") memo No. CC/333/55 stating among other things that the petitioner had sold to himself on 30-6-1954, 200 maunds of oil cake for Rs. 800/-, and on 1-7-1954, 50 maunds of mustard oil worth Rs. 5,000/- and had issued to himself two bills for Rs. 800/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively, but he did not pay the value.
It was further stated that on 1-7-54, the petitioner issued a note already referred to above to the Assistant Jailor and so the petitioner was charged for having dishonestly appropriated Government property and for falsification of accounts. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22-9-1955, vide Ext. 8 and he cited Dr. A.C. Kapoor, former Superintendent of Jail as his witness.
The petitioner contended that 200 maunds of oil cake and 50 maunds of mustard oil had been destroyed under the verbal orders of the Superintendent Dr. A.C. Kapoor, who made the petitioner liable for the loss and the credit note aforesaid and the entries of the bill book were prepared accordingly and the Superintendent accepted the arrangement under which the petitioner agreed to pay a monthly instalment out of his pay to make good the loss; and that in the course of two months, a sum of Rs. 120/- was actually deducted from the petitioners pay and credited into the Treasury.
In spite of the abov
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
