BANSHI LAL Vs. COLLECTOR, MORADABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition vires of Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Collectorate at Moradabad. He was working as agriculture income-tax clerk, looking after the cases arising under the U. P. Agriculture Income Tax Act. The Collector received complaints against him; after a preliminary enquiry he placed the petitioner under suspension and issued a charge-sheet to him on 16-3-1967 containing 16 different charges. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the charges. The Collector appointed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilari, who was Agriculture Income Tax Officer In-charge as enquiring officer to hold enquiry into the charges against the petitioner. A regular departmental enquiry as contemplated by Rule 55 of the Civil Service's (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, was held. On completion of the enquiry the enquiring officer submitted his report to the Collector on 15-9-1967. The Collector agreed with the report and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and after obtaining his reply he passed the order dated 27-7-1968 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation 'before the Board of Revenue, that was also rejected by an order dated 15-7-1971. Aggrieved the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution in as much as the recommendations made by the enquiring officer to the Collector relating to the punishment proposed against the petitioner was not communicated to him along with the report of the enquiring officer and show-cause notice with the result the petitioner could not get any opportunity to meet the said recommendations, although the Collector accepted the recommendations and proposed the punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. There is no dispute about facts on this question. The respondents assert that the enquiring officer had no doubt made recommendations for awarding punishment of dismissal against the petitioner but that recommendations were not communicated to the petitioner in accordance to the Rule 55-A. The petitioner has challenged the vires of R. 55-A on the ground that it violated the Constitutional protection guaranteed to a Government servant under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.