STAE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAOJIBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the former State of Bombay against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad declaring an order of dismissal passed against the plaintiff to be illegal ultra vires and void and that the plaintiff continues to be in the service of the State.

(2.) The plaintiff joined the Excise Department of the former Bombay State as a Sub-Inspector in 1926. At the relevant time in December 1948 the plaintiff was an Assistant Inspector of Excise Eastern Division Ahmedabad. The allegation of the State against the plaintiff was that one Chhotu Raiji had given information to the elect that Police Patel Narsibhai Ranchhodbhai of Maroli village and another Police Patel Fakirbhai Khushalbhai of village Vasai both villages being within the plaintiffs charge were dealing in illicit liquor to one Excise Sub-Inspector Mr. P. Y. Pradhan who was working out the case. In the meanwhile this information was passed on to the plaintiff by an Excise Constable. The plaintiff arranged to trap these two Police Patels and their associates one Dahya Luhar and one Dafer Puna Taiyab who is a camel-man. The raid was carried out according to the defendants by the plaintiff with the assistance of the Chief Excise Inspector R. D. Desai and Sub-Inspectors Karanjgaonkar Pradhan Trivedi and Pandya and some Excise Constables on the night of 17/01/1948 that an offence was detected and that the said two Police Patels and their associates were arrested including the Muddamal liquor and brought the same night to Ahmedabad that a Panchnama was pretended to be made on the spot though actually no Panchnama was made on the spot. The allegation of the Department was that on reaching Ahmedabad only Dahya Luhar and Dater Puna were put into the lock-up by the plaintiff while the two Police Patels were allowed to go scot free that subsequently even Dahya Luhar was discharged and that the plaintiff then asked Sub-Inspector Pradhan to take up the investigation. Sub-Inspector Pradhan however expressed his unwillingness on 20/01/1948 to do this job. The plaintiff then himself took up the investigation of the case and it was the Departments case that he charge-sheeted only Dafer Puna Taiyab. Even the preliminary case report was delayed and submitted by the plaintiff on 22/01/1948 instead on the same day of the raid as required by the departmental orders. The case of the Department further was that the plaintiff made the accused Dafer Puna to confess his guilt before the learned Magistrate and on his confession Dafer Puna was summarily convicted and sentenced to three months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/in default to suffer further R. I. for three months and the Dafers camel which brought the contraband liquor was confiscated. Chhotu Raiji on learning about this conviction from Press reports sent an application to the Congress House which resulted in a preliminary inquiry by the Anticorruption Branch Sub-Inspector Rana against the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case was that the real informant was Fakirbhai Khushalbhai and not Chhotu Raiji and that the allegations against him were engineered at the instance of designing persons including Sub-Inspectors Pradhan and Karanjgaonkar that Chhotu expected to get a reward that only one accused was arrested and that the Panchnama was actually made on the spot in Consequent however upon the report of Sub-Inspector Rana after his preliminary inquiry the plaintiff was suspended by the Commissioner of Excise on 1/12/1948. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise Bombay Mr. A. U. Shaikh was appointed to conduct an inquiry against the plaintiff. On 13/01/1949 a charge-sheet containing four charges was delivered to the plaintiff. The four charges were :

(3.) The plaintiff was called upon to put in his written statement within 15 days of the receipt of the charge-sheet and also to slate whether he wished that any witnesses should be examined to prove the above charges (probably another way of asking him whether he confessed his guilt) to cross-examine any of the witnesses or to produce any witness on his behalf. She was also asked to state if he wished to be heard in person on the above charges. The charge-sheet was accompanied by a list of witnesses and their statements and other documents on which the Department intended to rely on support of the charges. The plaintiff filed his written statement on 26/06/1949 and gave a list of defence witnesses. The inquiry was held on 16 17 and 18th February and 31/05/1950. On 29/06/1950 the inquiry Officer made his report holding that all the charges were proved. The fourth charge of delayed preliminary report was actually admitted by the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer recommended that in view of the gravity of the offences the punishment of dismissal should be meted out to the plaintiff. A show cause notice was issued by the Director of Prohibition & Excise on 1/02/1951 asking the plaintiff to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be meted out to him. The plaintiff gave his reply on 14/02/1951. The Director of Prohibition & Excise by his order dated 26/06/1951 dismissed the plaintiff with effect from the said date. The plaintiff preferred appeals to the Minister for Excise & Prohibition and also to the Chief Minister which were also dismissed. After giving the statutory notice under sec. 89 of the Civil Procedure Code the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a declaration that the said dismissal order is void and illegal in that (1) the inquiry was not carried out strictly according to the Bombay Civil Service Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules (2) that it was against the rules of natural justice (3) that it was conducted with prejudice and malice and (4) that after the second show cause notice he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on merits and that the officer concerned asked him to confine himself only to the question of the quantum of punishment.