STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GOPI KISHORE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution are applicable to a probationer in the Bihar Subordinate Civil Service, who has been discharged as unsuitable on grounds of notoriety for corruption and unsatisfactory work in the discharge of his public duties.

(2.) The facts of this case are short and simple. The respondent was appointed as a temporary Sub-Deputy Collector in the year 1944. In 1946, he was vested with the powers of a Magistrate of the First Class. In December, 1947, he was appointed to a substantive post in the Bihar Subordinate Civil Service, on probation. During the period of his probation, he was posted at Jamshedpur in the district of Singhbhum, and later at Nawada in the district of Gaya. Proceedings were taken against him and he was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated forthwith, by the Government letter dated November 4, 1952, a copy of which was forwarded to the respondent through the District Magistrate, Gaya. In that letter it was stated that throughout the year 1948 and upto the end of May, 1949, the respondent, while employed as a Sub-Deputy Magistrate at Jamshedpur, had earned notoriety for corrupt practices, that from May, 1949 to March 1951, the respondent's reputation while posted at Nawada, continued to be bad, and that his judicial work while at Jamshedpur had been subjected to careful scrutiny by Government, leading "to discovery of incredibly perverse decisions" given by him. Instances of eight cases with all the necessary details were also recited therein. Those proceedings terminated in an order of the Government of Bihar dated July 23, 1953, the relevant portions of which are as follows:

(3.) The respondent moved the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Government quoted above. The matter was heard by V. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) and K. Sahai, J. The High Court by its judgment dated January 19, 1955 allowed the application and quashed the order aforesaid of the Government dated July 23, 1953. Ramaswami, J., dealt with all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent-petitioner in the High Court- and after examining the relevant rules of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, came to the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to a full enquiry as contemplated by the first paragraph of R. 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, but that he was entitled to the protection under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. He also held that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the special reports of the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division and of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in the Criminal Investigation Department, had not been shown to the respondent. On these grounds he held that the order of discharge impugned by the respondent was illegal and ultra vires. Sahai, J., did not express a decided opinion on the question whether the respondent was entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, because in his view, the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in High Commr. for India vs. I. M. Lall, 75 Ind App 225, was concerned with a confirmed officer, whereas the respondent was only an officer on probation. But he agreed with Ramaswami, J., in the result, on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice.