Bapna, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner Ramesh Chandra was a clerk in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kotah Division. Certain complaints were noticed by the higher authorities and the Registrar framed charge-sheet about the various items of misconduct (it is not necessary to mention them in this judgment) of Rameshchandra on 7th April, 1954. The petitioner gave his explanation and a certain departmental enquiry followed. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mr. R.D. Bhargave passed the following order on 4th October, 1954 :—

"To the charges levelled against Shri Ramesh Chandra; Lower Division Clerk (noted in the margin), he has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation taking into account (1) his past record at service which is also indeed, unsatisfactory, and (2) the fact that warnings given to him in the past have had no effect on him, his case calls for dismissal. Accordingly he is ordered to be dismissed."

Ramesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (Bapna J.)

The charges noted on the margin are—

"(1) Missing of answer books, charge-sheet issued under No. Nil dated 29.6.54 by Education Officers, Cooperative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (2) Complaints against Shri M.D. Pareek regarding mis-appropriation. Charge-sheet issued under No. 2025 dated 5th April, 1954."

3. The petitioner filed an appeal and his appeal was rejected on 11th December, 1956 by the Government. The case of the petitioner is that he was not served with a notice under Art. 311 Clause (2) of the Constitution, to show cause why he should not be dismissed and, therefore, the order of dismissal dated 4th October, 1954 was invalid and should be set aside. He admitted having received a notice to show cause on 1st June, 1956 by the successor Registrar Shri Sampatmal, but urged that Shri Sampatmal did not exercise his mind on the explanation furnished by him nor it was so done by the Government and, therefore, the subsequent notice would not validate the previous order of dismissal.

4. On behalf of the State Mr, Chatterjee, Assistant Government Advocate, contended that although there was initial defect of service of notice under Art. 311(2), yet the Government while considering the appeal of the petitioner directed the Registrar to give a fresh notice, and thereafter to submit his recommendation. The file containing the orders in this behalf were produced. It appears from the perusal of the record now submitted that the objection as to want of notice under Art. 311(2) was taken by the Public Service Commission, and the Government by its letter of 18th June, 1955 directed the Registrar—

"A show cause notice, which is obligatory under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India should have been served upon Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma and any statement submitted by him taken into account before the order for dismissal was passed by you. This was not done and is a serious lacuna. It may please be done now and the papers returned to this Department together with any statement that Shri Ramesh Chandra might submit."

Shri Sampatmal seems to have re-examined the case and recorded an order on 1st June, 1956, that the charges had been proved. He also recorded the previous conduct of Shri Ramesh Chandra, according to the record available and then passed an order, the relevant portion of which is as follows : —

"In view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the previous conduct of Shri Ramesh Chandra, this notice is given to him to show cause why he be not dismissed from service. He should appear before me in my office at 8 A.M. on June 7, 1956, to show cause why the punishment proposed be not awarded to him."

5. In forwarding a copy of the above order, it was specifically mentioned that he should show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Mr. Ramesh Chandra gave his explanation and certain evidence was further recorded, as requested by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Thereafter, on 18th June, 1956, Shri Sam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document