PRATAP SINGH DARDI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition in which a former member of the Indian Administrative Service (member of the Service) has prayed for quashing the order made by the President imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against him, the following question of law arises for consideration:

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service allotted to the State of Karnataka. A departmental inquiry was instituted against him under the provisions of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short). Six charges of misbehaviour as set out in the Art. of Charges (Exhibit-A) were framed and the same were communicated to the petitioner together with the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of each of the article of charges. Sri Veeraraj Urs, the then Commissioner of Commercial Taxes of the State, was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges against the petitioner. After holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the rules, the Inquiring Authority held that out of the six charges framed against the petitioner, Charges 1, 2 and 6 were proved fully and Charge 5 partly, and that Charges 3 and 4 were not proved. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report to the. President, the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) The President agreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and issued a notice dated 19.10.1974 (Exhibit-R1 produced along with the statement of objections), calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed against him. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the inquiry records together with the inquiry report, the show-cause notice and the reply furnished by the petitioner, were sent to the Union Public Service Commission ('the Commission' for short) for its advice. On consideration of the inquiry records, the inquiry report and the reply furnished by the petitioner, the Commission advised that the findings recorded against the petitioner were sound and that he was liable to be dismissed from service. Accepting the said recommendation, the President made the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this Petition.