P L MICHAEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appellant was an Inspector in the Central Excise Department. On 31st October 1958, a departmental enquiry was launched against him under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called the CCS (CCA) Rules of 1957). The relevant charges related to making of false entries in his diary dated 19th May 1958, not maintaining a proper diary and making false and mischievous allegations against official superiors, insubordination and unnecessarily harassing one Raja Ram Misra warehouse licensee. The procedure of imposing major penalties on a Government servant prescribed by rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 governed the departmental enquiry. On receipt of the charges and allegations supporting them, the petitioner asked the Enquiry Officer "for the supply of the copies of all the documents which have been made basis of the charges framed against me (i.e. him)". He also asked for inspection of certain documents which were given to him. As for the supply of copies, he was informed that he should specifically state the records which he wanted to consult specifying the relevancy thereof within seven days. But he merely repeated his request for copies of the documents "which have been made basis for the charges framed against me". On this he was informed that "since you have failed to specify the records and give relevancy as asked for......the question of supplying copies of the documents does not arise". The petitioner thereupon refused to attend the enquiry held against him. During the enquiry, reference was made by the Enquiry Officer to documents numbering about fourteen. On the report of the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be removed from service. After he showed cause, an order of removal from service was passed against him. The appeal against the order imposing the punishment was partly allowed and the punishment was reduced from that of removal to that of reduction of the petitioner in rank from that of the Inspector to that of a Lower Division Clerk. A subsequent representation to the President was also dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the legality of the punishment imposed on him in a writ petition on the following grounds, namely:-

(3.) S. N. Shankar, J. negatived both these contentions and dismissed the writ petition. In this appeal against the said order of dismissal, Shri Frank Anthony learned counsel for the appellant has advanced the following contentions :-