KRISHAN LAL VIJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court dismissing the petition presented by the appellant in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Director of Intelligence Bureau dismissing the petitioner as also the order of the President of India made in appeal against the order of the said Director. The petitioner, it seems, was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 21-1-1950. He was promoted to the post of an Assistant on 1-3-1952. He was served with a charge- sheet on 16-2-1957 by Shri A.G. Rajadhyaksha, Deputy Director of the Intelligence Bureau, which was inter alia as follows:

(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the appellant-petitioner three points were unsuccessfully raised. However, the point that no dereliction of duty can be said to be established on the fact has not been pressed, though the points raised before us here are also three in number. The first challenge to the impugned order is to the effect that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to defend himself. The second uoint emphasises the grievance that relevant documents required by the appellant for his defence were not supplied to him and the third point challenges the authority of Shri Rajadhyaksha to hold the enquiry and to make a report against the appellant. Connected with the challenge is also the challenge that Shri B.N. Mullik could not have made the final order passed on the enquiry held by Shri Rajadhyaksha.

(3.) Dealing with the first challenge, the appellant's learned counsel has submitted that after the close of the evidence led by the department, the appellant was entitled to be told by the Enquiry Officer that he had a right to adduce defence evidence and time should have been granted to him to summon and examine witnesses in his defence. The recognised rules of natural justice, according to the appellant's learned counsel, demand such procedure. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the following observations from a decision of the Punjab High Court in State of Punjab v. Karam Chand, At p. 187 (of PLR): (at p. 412 of AIR) Bhandarf C. J, observed as follows: