LAWS(KAR)-1968-11-7

PRABHU C D Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE

Decided On November 29, 1968
PRABHU(C.D.) Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner who was a second division clerk was commenced on 23 September, 1958, on which date the charges which were made by the disciplinary authority who was the Depute Commissioner, were communicated to him. The petitioner produced his defence on 25 October, 1958. After the completion of that enquiry a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30 May, 1959, in which he was intimated that it was proposed to impose a punishment in the form of stoppage of five increments. The petitioner produced his representation with respect to this show-cause notice on 16 June, 1959, and that was the last that anyone heard those disciplinary proceedings.

(2.) But instead of continuing the old disciplinary proceedings in which nothing was done after the production of the representation in response to the show-cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner commenced a new disciplinary on 26 November, 1960 in obedience to the direction that he should so commence it, imparted to him by the Divisional Commissioner. After the completion of that enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was dismissed and it is the punishment which is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) Though the punishment inflicted is challenged on more than one ground in this writ petition, the two main criticisms made by Sri Datar of his punishment are, firstly, that after the discontinuance of the first disciplinary proceeding there could be no second disciplinary proceeding in respect of the same charges to which the first disciplinary proceeding related. It was asserted by Sri Datar that the contention raised on behalf of the Government that the second disciplinary proceeding comprised additional charges which were not included in the charges to which the first disciplinary proceeding related, is unsustainable and that in truth what was done in the second disciplinary proceeding was the splitting up of the old charges into a larger number.