JAGDISH CHANDRA BHASIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of an order of dismissal of the applicant passed by the opposite party and for a direction to the opposite party to reinstate the applicant to his post.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was an Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments in the employ of the opposite party in 1950. Complaints were received against the applicant of corruption and a trap was laid for the detection of the crime. As a sequel to the trap laid, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was arrested on 20-12-1950 and was placed under suspension with effect from that date by the opposite party. On 4-1-1951, about a couple of weeks after the prosecution was launched, a charge-sheet was submitted in connection with disciplinary action in departmental proceedings. Nothing further was done for some time for inquiring into the charges served upon the petitioner in the departmental inquiry, presumably because he was undergoing a trial on similar other charges. The applicant was ultimately acquitted by the criminal court on 30-11-1951 but no orders reinstating him were, however, passed. During the pendency of the trial another charge sheet in respect of some other charges was also served upon the applicant on 16-5-1951. These charges were supplementary to the charges already served upon the applicant on 4-1-1951. The applicant applied to the opposite party for reinstatement after his acquittal on 30-11-1951. He sent another letter in this connection on 2-1-1952 which was delivered to the Chief Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments. On the same day an order was passed intimating to the applicant that he shall continue to remain under suspension on the charges communicated to him in the office letter dated the 16th May, 1951. An inquiry into the charges was then made by the Chief Inspector of Factories and ultimately he sent his report to the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner sent a copy of the report of the inquiring officer to the applicant and served him with a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. After the applicant had beer, heard by the Labour Commissioner he ultimately passed an order dismissing the applicant from service. The applicant then went up in appeal which was dismissed but the orders were communicated to the applicant on 15-4-1955. He then made the petition for a writ which is before me.

(3.) The grounds on which the applicant seeks the aid of this Court under its writ jurisdiction, mainly are that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself by the inquiring officer and secondly that the order of suspension came to an end on 30-11-1951 and it was not open to the opposite party to put him retrospectively under suspension with effect from 30-11-1951. A third point was also raised that the Public Service Commission had not been consulted before disciplinary action was taken against the applicant and as such the order of dismissal which followed the disciplinary action was bad.