ONKAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was employed in February 1944 as inspector in the central Excise Department. He was subsequently transferred to the Harijan Sahayak Department and appointed to a gazetted post of group officer subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh. He was approved by the Commission and was appointed to the permanent and pensionable post of manager, Kalyanpur settlement, Kanpur. He was subsequently transferred to the head office, Lucknow, as Harijan Welfare Officer, headquarters. In May 1952 the audit of the accounts at the Kalyanpur settlement showed that some both had been sold at the rates different from the approved rates. A chargesheet in that connexion was served on the petitioner on 12 August 1966. He submitted his explanation and an enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the charges established and recommended the removal of the petitioner. The recommendation was submitted to the State Government and the Government by an order dated 15 December 1960 directed the removal of the petitioner from service with effect from 3 December 1960. A representation was submitted to the Governor bat was rejected. By the present petition the petitioner wants the order of his removal to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(2.) A large number of grounds have been raised in the petition, but the main point pressed in support of the petition is that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself and the rules of natural justice were contravened inasmuch in the statements of certain witnesses were recorded behind his back and some witnesses were not examined in his presence, but only their statements were read out and then he was asked to cross-examine them. Circumstances in which this was done practically deprived him of the right to cross-examine the witnesses. It is further urged that a large number of documents numbering 65 mentioned in annexure R to the petition were used against the petitioner without his being given an opportunity of offering his explanation about those documents.

(3.) A preliminary objection is taken that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and can agitate the matter in a regular suit. The discretion of this Court should not, therefore, be exercised in favour of the petitioner.