Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. S. Dhavan, J.
NIRANJAN PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 461 Of 1957
Decided On : 04/16/1959
S. S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division dismissing the petitioner from service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a paid apprentice in the Collectorate at Mathura in 1948 and confirmed as a clerk in march 1951. He claims to have worked honestly and efficiently in the discharge of his duties. In february 1955 he was working as Moharrir Judicial In the Tehsil of Sadabad when the Collector of Mathura inspected the Tehsil. According to the petitioners version, the Collector called him to his camp and enquired about the complaints of bribery which were alleged to be pending against the Tehsildar. The petitioner states that he refused to answer any question and was transferred to the Sadar treasury at Mathura. On 16-5-1955 the petitioner was again summoned by the Collector at his resi-dence and was directed to explain if he had any proof that the Tehsildar had asked him (the peti-tioner) to accept bribes in pending cases.
Finding of the Court:
I hold that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the punish-ment of dismissal inflicted on him. I further hold that the finding of the enquiry tribunal holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of accepting illegal gratification is manifestly erroneous,. I further hold that the order dismissing the petitioner Niranjan Prasad from service was passed in viola-tion of the procedure prescribed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and is also erroneous. I there-fore quash the finding of the Commissioner and the order of dismissal based on it.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the punishment of dismissal inflicted on him? 2. Whether the finding of the enquiry tribunal holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of accepting illegal gratification is manifestly erroneous? 3. Whether the order dismissing the petitioner Niranjan Prasad from service was passed in viola-tion of the procedure prescribed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and is also erroneous?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the punishment of dismissal inflicted on him. 2. The finding of the enquiry tribunal holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of accepting illegal gratification is manifestly erroneous. 3. The order dismissing the petitioner Niranjan Prasad from service was passed in viola-tion of the procedure prescribed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and is also erroneous.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed. The finding of the Commissioner and the order of dismissal based on it are quashed.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division dismissing the petitioner from service.
( 2 ) THE facts as alleged in the petitioners affi-davit supporting the petition are these: He was appointed as a paid apprentice in the Collectorate at Mathura in 1948 and confirmed as a clerk in march 1951. He claims to have worked honestly and efficiently in the discharge of his duties. In february 1955 he was working as Moharrir Judicial In the Tehsil of Sadabad when the Collector of Mathura inspected the Tehsil. According to the petitioners version, the Collector called him to his camp and enquired about the complaints of bribery which were alleged to be pending against the Tehsildar. The petitioner states that he refused to answer any question and was transferred to the Sadar treasury at Mathura. On 16-5-1955 the petitioner was again summoned by the Collector at his resi-dence and was directed to explain if he had any proof that the Tehsildar had asked him (the peti-tioner) to accept bribes in pending cases. Tbis directions was contained in a written order which was served on the petitioner. He was asked to note down his reply on the same order which he did. Both the order and the reply have been attached to the petitioners affidavit. The order of the Collector runs thus:
"during by camp at Sadabad from 4th to 7-2-1955 I heard frequent complaints against your integrity. When you were asked to explain you verbally stated that you had taken bribes but that it had been done under the orders of the Tehsildar, Sri Ranbir Prasad. Please let me know if you have any specific proof that Sri Ranbir Prasad asked you to take money in cases and furnish details that you are able to give. "
The petitioners reply was very brief and runs thus:"sir, i have nothing to say in this connection. I may kindly be pardoned. Sd, N. Prasad. 16-5-55. "
( 3 ) THE petitioner alleges that the Collector was not satisfied with his answer, and he called the petitioner to his residence once again at 8 P. M. on the same day. He dictated an order to his stenographer and forced the petitioner to put his signature. A copy of this statement has been attached as annexure "a 3" of the petitioners affidavit. It is in the form of questions and answers and consists of three questions. The document is as follows: "statement of Sri Niranjan Prasad Treasury Clerk Mathura on S. A. dated 16-5-55. Question : When I called you today and asked you to explain about complaints of bribery against you you told me that as the Moharrir Judicial Sadabad you used to take about 25/- to 30/pet day from the litigant public? Is that true? answer: I may be excused. I have small chil-dren at home. Question : This is not a reply to the question I have put above. I again ask you to reply if you said so or not? answer : This was a private talk. (Then he said) I had said so I may be excused. Question : When I asked you to give this in writing did you or did not refuse to give this in writing? answer : (The official refused to answer and said that he begs to be excused and went on repeat-ing this.)Sd. B. D. Jayal. Sd. Niranjan Pd. 16-5-55. 16-5-55.
( 4 ) AS stated above, the petitioners case is that he was forced to sign this document, but he has not indicated the nature of coercion or pressure put upon him. Presumably, he means that he was over-awe. d or brow-beaten by the Collector into signing it. The petitioner further states that he raised a serious objection against the manner in which the Collector had compelled him to sign the aforesaid statement. As a result, the Collector became suspicious and made a bad entry in the character roll of the petitioner. A copy qf this entry is attached as annexure b of the petitioners affidavit. It is signed by the Collector and states that during his camp at Sadabad the Collector heard frequent complaints against the petitioners integrity and that his reputati
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
