Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jagdish Sahai, J.
B.N.SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 692 Of 1959
Decided On : 07/12/1960
TRIBUNAL RULES - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - KAKA BABU'S STATEMENT - INQUIRY - APPROPRIATENESS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Dy. S. P., was charged with personal immorality and failure to discharge his duties properly. The charges were referred to the Tribunal under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. The Tribunal found the petitioner guilty of some of the charges and recommended his dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Tribunal Rules and the findings of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal Rules were not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification of government servants into different categories for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings was reasonable and the rules were not discriminatory. The Court also held that the petitioner had been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the charges. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had erred in relying on the statement of Kake Babu, which was not signed by him and was recorded by the C. I. D. at the back of the petitioner. The Court held that this evidence was inadmissible and that the findings of the Tribunal were based on inadmissible evidence. The Court quashed the findings and the report of the Tribunal and restrained the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of the said findings and report.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal Rules were hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the petitioner had been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the charges. 3. Whether the Tribunal had erred in relying on the statement of Kake Babu.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of government servants into different categories for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings was reasonable and the rules were not discriminatory. 2. The petitioner had been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the charges. 3. The Tribunal had erred in relying on the statement of Kake Babu, which was not signed by him and was recorded by the C. I. D. at the back of the petitioner. This evidence was inadmissible and the findings of the Tribunal were based on inadmissible evidence.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the findings and the report of the Tribunal and restrained the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of the said findings and report.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Dy. S. P. During his student days at Allahabad he got very friendly with a girl Kumari Kumudni who was a class fellow of the petitioners niece. The petitioner and Kumari kumudni were keen to marry each other. The parents of Kumari Kumudni did not agree to marrying her with the petitioner because they were Brahmins and the petitioner was a Thakur and thus belonged to two different castes. In 1940 Kumari Kumudni was, according to the petitioner, married to Sri S. K. Joshi against her will. It is alleged in the petition that Smt. Kumudni and Sri S. K. Joshi never led a happy married life and the former could not extend to the latter feelings of love and affection. Some time after Smt. Kumudni was married to Joshi, the petitioner was also married. The petitioners case is that Smt. Kumudni told Sri Joshi on occasions more than one that she did not love him and that she loved the petitioner with the result that Sri Joshi ill-treated her. On the evening of 20-8-1955 Smt. Kumudni suddenly came with her children to the petitioners residence at Mirzapur where he was posted as a Dy. S. P. and stayed with him for some time, after having left a letter for her husband informing him that their married life had not been happy and she had decided to leave him. While she was with the petitioner at Mirzapur some C. I. D. officers were deputed to watch his activities. This, it is said, was done at the instance of some highly placed government officers who were close relations of Sri S. K. Joshi and who had influence with the Inspector General of Police. After staying for sometime with the petitioner Smt, Kumudni left the petitioners place and came to Allahabad where she filed a suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of her marriage with Sri S. K. Joshi. On 12-9-1955 the petitioner was transferred to pauri Garhwal by wireless with directions to join there by 15-9-1955. Sometime after joining at pauri Garhwal the petitioner came to his fathers place at Allahabad in order to take his winter clothing where he found Smt. Kumudni staying. During the petitioners stay at Allahabad one day Smt. Kumudni and the petitioner got burns while Smt. Kumudni was lighting a stove. The petitioner as also Smt. Kumudni were admitted in the Moti Lal Nehru Hospital. The petitioner recovered after a protracted illness but Smt. Kumudni succumbed to the injuries. On 12-4-1956 the petitioner had an interview with the Inspector General of Police, who informed the petitioner that he was being discussed in the Secretariat and either he should resign or face a dismissal. The petitioner did not agree to resign. An enquiry was got made against the petitioner through the Criminal Investigation Department (hereinafter referred to as the C. I. D. ). After the petitioner got well from the burn injuries received by him he was not for a long time posted anywhere in spite of reminders. In August 1957 he was posted as a Dy. S. P. at Bareilly. He w. as also not allowed to cross the efficiency bar. According to the petitioner these steps were taken in order to make things difficult for him and make him resign from service. The petitioner however withstood all this but did not resign and ultimately his case was referred to the XI. P. Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal framed the following charges against the petitioner.
" (a) You rented a house adjacent to the house of Srimati K. Joshi, Almora, under the name of your brother for May and June, 1955 and lived there for immoral purposes after obtaining leave on misrepresentation of facts. (b) You maneuvered the elopement of Srimati K. Joshi for immoral purposes from her husbands residence at Faizabad on 20-8-1955 and kept her at Mirzapur, Varanasi, Allahabad and Lucknow etc. (c) You admitted to Sri S. K. Joshi, Munsif husband of Srimati K. Joshi, of your love affair with her and also of her stay with y
AI
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
