Veeraswami, C.J.-The appeal arises from an order of Kailasam, J., who dismissed the appellant’s petition to quash an order of the State Government reducing the appellant from the cadre of Assistant Engineer to that of a Supervisor. He was in the service of the erstwhile Pudukottah State and seems to have actually held four posts. After the merger in 1948 and in accordance with the merger rules as to the services, he was absorbed in November, 1949, as a Mechanical Supervisor, and in March, 1954, promoted as Assistant Engineer, Highways. His services in that cadre were regularised in April, 1957. In May next year, the Chief Engineer, Highways, charged him with having made false statements to the Superintending Engineer, Highways, about his technical qualifications. Before the explanation, which had been submitted, was considered, the Superintending Engineer, in December, 1958, framed four charges and held an enquiry into them. In April, 1960, in regard to the charge framed by the Chief Engineer, there was a show cause notice against the proposed punishment, but, later in July, 1961, that notice was cancelled and a fresh notice combining all the charges was served on the appellant, asking him to show cause why he should not be reverted to the post of Supervisor. The charge framed by the Chief Engineer was found proved and so too the charges 1 to 3 framed by the Superintending Engineer. Eventually, by the impugned order, the punishment referred to earlier was imposed on the appellant. Having failed in his appeal and memorandum to the Department, he moved this Court but without success. Kailasam, J., found that the enquiry relating to charges 2 and 3 framed by the Superintending Engineer was vitiated on account of the fact that four witnesses relating to those charges were examined behind the back of the appellant and that, even otherwise, inasmuch as the depositions of those witnesses were not made available to the appellant, the enquiry in respect of those charges and the findings thereon were not legal. But the learned Judge found no case against the departmental findings relating to the rest of the charges. We may mention that even in the departmental enquiry, the fourth charge framed by the Superintending Engineer had been found not true. In that situation, two points were urged in the writ petition, which are also reiterated before us, that the punishment awarded was as a result of the cumulative effect of the findings in respect of the charge framed by the Chief Engineer and charges 1 to 3 framed by the Superintending Engineer, and that since the learned Judge was of the view that the findings on charges 2 and 3 framed by the Superintending Engineer could not be sustained, the punishment also should go. This is on the assumption that there was no knowing whether if these two charges were not found, still the same punishment would have been inflicted on the appellant.
2. On that matter, we think that State of Orissa v. Bidvabhushan Mohapatra1, is conclusive against the appellant. There the Supreme Court, after holding that the findings in respect of some of the charges against a Government servant could not be supported, was of the opinion that, nevertheless, the punishment in the context of the other findings on other charges could not be interfered with. While so holding, the Supreme Court observed:
“If the High Court is satisfied that if some but not all the findings of the Tribunal were ‘unassailable’, the order of the Governor, on whose powers by the rules no restrictions in determining the appropriate punishment are placed, was final, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty, for, as we have already observed, the order of dismissal passed by a competent authority on a public servant, if the conditions of the constitutional protection have been complied with, is not justiciable. Therefore, if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the pu
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
