CLIFFORD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an assistant master at King George's School at Bangalore, in the service of Government of India, Defence Department. Certain charges had been framed against the petitioner in respect of some alleged misconduct on his part, the details of which it is not necessary to enter into at present. A board of enquiry had been appointed to hold an enquiry in respect of those charges which had been framed against the petitioner. In the month of November 1962, the Board gave its findings as per Annexure N 12 (to be found in the paper book supplied by the petitioner at p. 60). Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 7 December, 1962 was served on the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. To that show-cause notice, the petitioner had sent a reply. Then, respondent 2, viz. The chief of the General Staff, Army Head Quarters, passed the order of removal dated 10 July, 1963 as per Annexure A; by that order, the penalty of removal from the service of the Government (with effect from 10 July, 1963), was imposed on the petitioner. Thereafter, on 30 December, 1963 the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of his removal. That appeal was filed under rule 18 of the Civilians in Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). That appeal was rejected on 13 April, 1964 by respondent 1, viz., Government of India, through the Secretary, Defence Department, as per Ex. (a). The material portion of that exhibit is as follows :

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition attacking the enquiry proceedings, the order of the termination of his services and the order passed by the appellate authority, on various grounds. He has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his removal, and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to pay him all the arrears of salary as from the date of his suspension.

(3.) Two counter-affidavits have been filed by the Government Pleader (Central Government) on behalf of respondents 3 and 6. We have heard Sri S. B. Jahagirdar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, and Sri B. S. Keshava Ayyangar, High Court Government Pleader (Central Government). For the reasons which will be presently set out, it appears to be sufficient for the present purposes, to confine ourselves to the order as per Ex. (a) which has been passed by the appellate authority. Having regard to the view which we propose to take, we do not consider it necessary to go into the other contentions which have been raised by Sri Jahagirdar in regard to the enquiry proceedings and the order of removal from service that has been passed in consequence of the finding by the board of enquiry.