R K VASHISHT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi, dated 29/10/1990.

(2.) The appellant was a member of the Indian Police Service of the gujarat Cadre. While he was serving as a District Superintendent of police, Bulsar, a number of charges were framed against him. The enquiring Authority constituted under Rule 8 (2 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, held enquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant. It appears that due to certain reasons the enquiring Authority was reconstituted by orders dated 6/02/197 3/12/1973 and 7/05/1975. The Enquiring Authority submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that some of the charges were proved against the appellant. On the basis of this report of the enquiring Authority, the State government recommended that the appellant be dismissed from service which was received by Union Government on 29/05/1979. On the recommendation of the State Government the Union government was in a dilemma as to whether a second show-cause notice should be issued to the appellant or not. Ultimately, the government decided that it was not necessary to serve a second show cause notice in view of the amendment of Article 311 (2 of the Constitution by the Forty-second Amendment. Ultimately, the President of India, who is the appointing authority, issued order on 14/08/1987 dismissing the appellant from service. The appellant thereupon challenged the order of dismissal before central Administrative tribunal on a number of grounds. The tribunal dismissed the appellant's application by the impugned order.

(3.) The appellant had raised a number of grounds in assailing the order of dismissal before the central Administrative tribunal. A copy ofthe report of the Enquiring Authority was not supplied to the appellant before dismissal order was passed as a result of which the appellant could not make representation to the disciplinary authority. The tribunal rejected this contention on the ground that since the report submitted by the Enquiring Authority had been despatched by registered post at the appellant's address there was a presumption of its service, therefore, the appellant's grievance could not be accepted. The Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had been served with a copy of the enquiry report. Same contention is raised by the appellant before this court.