Back
1960 Supreme(All) 199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. D. Bhargava, J.
MADAN LAL CHAWLA - Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL, HARCOURT BUTLER TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 2005 Of 1959
Decided On : 11/10/1960
M.H.BEG, SHAMBHU PRASAD
Headnote:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 311(1) - DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT - AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO DISMISS - APPOINTING AUTHORITY TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT - HEAD OF NEW DEPARTMENT BECOMES APPOINTING AUTHORITY - HEAD OF NEW DEPARTMENT CAN DISMISS GOVERNMENT SERVANT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, in 1951. The Institute was owned and run by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner was promoted to the post of stenographer and was declared provisional substantive stenographer. In 1959, the petitioner was suspended by the Principal of the Institute on the grounds of insubordination and other charges. An enquiry committee was appointed to investigate the charges against the petitioner. The committee submitted its report to the Principal, who issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking why he should not be dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the proceedings against him on the grounds that the Principal of the Institute was not the competent authority to dismiss him, that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, and that the proceedings were vitiated by bias.
Finding of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court held that the Principal of the Institute was the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner. The Court held that the Director of Industries, who had appointed the petitioner, had been transferred to another department and the Principal of the Institute had been declared as the head of the department. The Court held that the Principal, as the head of the department, was the appointing authority and, therefore, he was also the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner. The Court also held that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself and that the proceedings were not vitiated by bias.
Issues: 1. Whether the Principal of the Institute was the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself? 3. Whether the proceedings were vitiated by bias?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Principal of the Institute was the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner because the Director of Industries, who had appointed the petitioner, had been transferred to another department and the Principal of the Institute had been declared as the head of the department. The Principal, as the head of the department, was the appointing authority and, therefore, he was also the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself because he was given a copy of the charges against him, he was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and he was given an opportunity to submit his own defense. 3. The proceedings were not vitiated by bias because there was no evidence that the Principal of the Institute or any of the members of the enquiry committee had any personal animosity towards the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Madan Lal Chawla who, according to him, was a displaced person and originally belonged to West Punjab. He settled in kanpur in 1951. He was appointed on 21-5-1951 as clerk at the Harcourt Butler Technological institute, Kanpur, which is an institute owned and run by the Government, by the Director of industries, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. He was promoted to the post of stenographer and was declared provisional substantive stenographer. According to the petitioner his work was very satisfactory and was appreciated and that be was awarded a special prize. The petitioner was working directly under the Principal, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur at the time the present incident arose. He never gave, according to him, any cause for a single warning to be issued against him and his service roll and record contain nothing but only good entries.
( 2 ) A communication was received by the petitioner dated 24-4-1059 from the Principal, Harcourt butler Technological Institute intimating to him that under the orders of the Director of industries he had been suspended. The cause of this notice appeared, according to the petitioner, that the Principal of the Institute had come in conflict with Dr. D. R. Dhingra, who was formerly a Director of Industries and ex officio Principal of the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute. The petitioner being the stenographer of Dr. Dhingra was not liked by the present Principal. The petitioner denied that there was any legal order of suspension against him from the Director of industries, U. P. , Kanpur. According to him he was appointed by the Director of Industries, who was superior in rank and office to the Principal and that no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him and no charge could be framed against him by any authority inferior in rank and office to the! Director of Industries.
( 3 ) THE charge sheet was given to him on 1-5-1959 by the Principal which included charges from 23-8-1957 to 17-3-1959. The petitioner asked for certain, papers, on the basis of which those charges had been framed and which were to be relied upon against him. According to him, only copies of some of the papers were given. He submitted his reply on 20-5-1959. After some more papers were given to him, he submitted a second reply on 11-6-1959 and the third reply was given on 30-6-1959.
( 4 ) ON 8-7-1959 the petitioner was informed by a letter from the Administrative Officer of the harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur that a committee of three persons had been appointed consisting of Sri K. H. Parikh, (Glass Technologist to U. P. Government), Chitranjan mittra (Advisor to Government Chemical Engineering) and W. R. Damle, (Alcohol technologist ). There are two letters which were on behalf of the Committee asking the petitioner to come before the enquiring committee. According to the petitioner he was not given copies of the documents and he had not been given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses nor to put forth his own version in his own way and lastly it was urged that the Administrative Officer was taking part who was biased against him and therefore) in fact he did not take part in the proceedings. Thereafter the enquiry was held by the Committee and a report was submitted to the Principal, Technological institute who issued an order dated 12-8-1959 asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not Be dismissed. It is at this stage that the petitioner came to this court.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised numerous grounds of law and fact in this petition, both which directly arise in the case and also incidentally or even remotely. Inter alia, the pleas that have been taken are that the papers having not been supplied to him and he having not been allowed to put forth his own version the principles of natural justice have not been observed that the Administrative
