JUDGMENT :- This special appeal is directed against the judgment of B. N. Nigam, J. dated 7th of May, 1965 dismissing Writ Petition No. 380 of 1964 filed by appellant, Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena, who was a Notary practising in the City of Lucknow. In the writ petition aforesaid, the order of the State Government dated March 11, 1964 removing the name of the appellant-petitioner, Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena, from the register of Notaries is sought to be quashed.

2. Sri Kashi Prasad Saksena was appointed as a Notary by means of the order of the State Government dated 17th of August, 1959, for a period of three years. On 10-8-1962 his term was renewed for a further period of three years with effect from 20-8-1962. However, the State Government received certain complaints against him and asked the District Judge, Lucknow, who is a competent authority under the rules framed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to make an enquiry. The District Judge framed the following three charges against Sri Saksena :

1. Is it a fact that you made no entry in your register regarding the three affidavits dated 25-7-1961, 24-8-1961 of Sarjoo Prasad, Inder Prakash and Chandra Mohan respectively?

2. Is it a fact that the four affidavits were not duly stamped and in spite of it you authenticated them?

3. It is said that none of these four affidavits were stamped with notarial stamps as required by Art. 42 of the Stamp Act and in spite of it you authenticated the affidavits?

3. Sri Saksena was called upon to submit an explanation and to meet the charges aforesaid and he did so on 29-6-1962. It appears that the District Judge made a report adverse to Sri Saksena. Sri Saksena applied for a copy of the report, but in spite of his request, no copy was supplied to him. As already stated earlies, he was removed by means of the order dated 11th of March, 1964 (annexure 4 to the writ petition).

4. The following questions were canvassed before B. N. Nigam, J. :

1. That the petitioner-appellant was holding a civil post under the State of U. P. within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India and was for that reason entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, and inasmuch as he was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as required by that provision, the order of removal is void.

2. That the charges had not been proved against the petitioner and on the basis of those charges his name could not be removed from the register of Notaries.

4A. No other submission was made before Nigam, J.

5. Nigam, J. rejecting the submission of petitioner-appellant that he held a civil post under the State of U. P., concluded that the petitioner-appellant was not entitled to the protection of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. In respect of the charges Nigam, J. held that "no reason has been made out for my holding that at least charges 1 and 3 were not satisfactorily proved against the petitioner". He further held that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the State Government came to the conclusion of misconduct on the part of the petitioner on the proof of one or more of the charges". In the end, Nigam, J. concluded as follows :

"It, therefore, cannot be said that the final conclusion of misconduct is vitiated merely because the State Government's conclusion might be erroneous, as regards the second charge. There is nothing on record to indicate whether in the opinion of the Enquiring Officer and the State Government charge No. 2 was proved against the petitioner."

7. Mr. Haiela, who has appeared for the petitioner-appellant, has made a very strenuous argument before us to the effect that the petitioner was holding a civil post under the State of U. P. and for that reason was entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. He has also submitted that the charges on the basis of which the petitioner-appellant has been removed, could not amount to professional misconduct or even misc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document