WANCHOO, C.J. — This is an application by Sobhagmal for issue of a writ of mandamus quashing the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Rajasthan dated 29th of July, 1952, and of the Government, dated 17th January, 1953, and directing them to proceed according to law in connection with the proceedings resulting in the dismissal of the applicant.

2. The case of the applicant is that he was appointed by the Government of the former State of Jaipur, on the 16th October, 1946, on probation for one year. Thereafter, he was appointed on the 4th March, 1948, as Inspector, Customs and Excise Department, as his work during the probationary period was found satisfactory. He was suspended from service by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Jaipur, and gave over charge on the 11th June, 1949. No reasons were given for such suspension in the letter of the Assistant Commissioner. Eventually, however, on the 31st August, 1951, the Divisional Assistant Commissioner Customs and Excise, gave the applicant a charge-sheet containing three charges against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was made into these charges; but as there was delay in the enquiry, the applicant approached the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan on the 5th of July, 1952, and the Chief Secretary asked the Commissioner, Customs and Excise to expedite the proceedings. This annoyed the Commissioner who sent a letter to the applicant to appear in person or by pleader before him on the 18th of July, and give a written reply to certain queries in the letter of the Commissioner. These queries consisted of lour items, three of which were a repetition of the three charges already supplied to him, and the fourth asked him to explain why he should not be discharged from service. Thereafter, the applicant was removed from service on the 29th of July, 1952, and this order was confirmed on appeal by the Government of Rajasthan on the 17th of January, 1953.

3. The applicant attacks these orders on two main grounds(l) that as he was appointed by the Government of the former State of Jaipur, he could only be removed by the Government of Rajasthan and not by the Commissioner, Customs and Excise who was an authority subordinate to the Government of Rajasthan in view of the provisions of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution, (2) and that the mandatory provision of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution was not complied with, and the order of removal was, therefore, bad.

4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State, and it is urged that, in the first place, the applicant was not appointed by the Government of the former State of Jaipur, but by the Commissioner, Excise and Customs. In any case, it is urged that even if he was appointed by the Government of the former State of Jaipur, his dismissal by the Commissioner of Excise and Customs, Rajasthan, was not hit by Art. 311(1). It was further urged that the provisions of Art. 311(2) were complied with, and the order of removal cannot be attacked on that ground. Lastly, it was urged that the applicant had another remedy open to him, namely by way of suit, and, therefore, this Court should not interfere under Art. 226.

5. The first question that arises in this case is whether the applicant was appointed by the former State of Jaipur, or by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise of that State. On that point, the original reply of the State of Rajasthan seemed to accept the position put forward by the applicant, namely that he had been appointed by the Government of the former State of Jaipur. But later the State filed an amendment to the reply in which it was urged from certain facts the appointment of the applicant as Inspector, Customs and Excise, should be deemed to have been made by the Commissioner, Customs.

6. We have gone through the various documents which have been filed in this connection by both parties and are satisfied that the applicant was appointed by the Government of the former State of Jaipur. It is the admit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document