MOHAMMAD ISHAQ Vs. COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was employed as Super visor Kanungo on November 29, 1965, he made an application for casual leave and without obtaining prior written order sanctioning him leave he left the station. Thereafter, he applied for further ex tension of leave by several applications which were all rejected. He was also placed under suspension by an order dated January 17, 1966. Charges were drawn up and an enquiry was held. Subsequently, the file appears to have become untraceable. The file was attempted to be reconstituted. Meanwhile, on April 5, 1968 the order of suspen sion of the appellant was revoked and he was reinstated. After a formal enquiry The Collector, Kanpur, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of having left the station without obtaining a formal permission. For this misconduct the appellant was awarded the punishment of a warning. With regard to the suspension period, the Collector directed that 3/4th of the pay will be allowed for this period. The period of suspension will count towards duty and pen sion both. The appellant will also get the amount of allowances due to him from time to time.

(2.) AGGRIEVED , the appellant filed an appeal before the Commis sioner. The memorandum of appeal was a long and elaborate docu ment. The appellant invited the attention of the Commissioner to the decision in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 240 in which it was held that an order under Rule 54 is not always a consequential order nor is such order a continuation of the depart mental proceeding taken against the employee. It is based on posi tive considerations and an opportunity to show cause 'against the proposed action should be given. The appellant requested the Com missioner to take a decision in his appeal keeping in view the prin ciples laid down by the Supreme Court.

(3.) IN appeal it has been argued that even though the appellant may have been found guilty of absence from duty without prior per mission and may have been punished for it, yet the further order depriving him in one fourth pay for the period of suspension being an order under Rule 54, attracted the cannons of natural justice. Admittedly, no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to show cause against such an order. It may be that the Collector did not give a fresh opportunity to show cause as to why the salary of the appellant should not be reduced for the period; but nonetheless it is against the impugned order. In that the appellant did not even whisper that an opportunity should be given to him. The Memo randum of appeal was an elaborate document. The appellant stated all that he desired to say with regard to the merits as well as the ac tion under Rule 54. On facts the appellant had had an ample oppor tunity to have his say with regard to fundamental Rule 54 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, however, affirmed the order of the Collector obviously on the footing that the facts and circum stances of the case deserved it. The grievance of the appellant that the order passed under Rule 54 violates the principles of natural justice is, under the circumstances, futile.