RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was in permanent government service and was working as court clerk of the Bench of Magistrates at Rajepur in the district of Farrukhabad. On 5-3-1952 he received an order from the officer in charge, collectorate, Far-rukhabad, asking him to submit his explanation about the report of the petitioner's attendance in the rally of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh volunteers held on 17-2-1952. The petitioner filed an explanation on 6-3-1952. This explanation bears an endorsement by one of the Bench Magistrates which is as follows :

(2.) That you participated in a meeting of the R. S. S. Sangh on 13-4-1952 held at Farrukhabad. Now, therefore, you are called upon to explain why disciplinary action of the nature of dismissal or otherwise should not be taken against you. You are directed to put in your written statement on or before 26th May, 1952 before Mr. C. E. David, S.U.O. Kaimganj and state whether you wish to be heard in person and adduce any evidence on your behalf. Sd. V. Kumar, I.C.S., Collector, 13-5-1952.

(3.) The petitioner made another application on 5th of June, 1952 asking for further clarification of the evidence against him. He was however informed by the officer in charge that all the information had already been communicated to him in the note which I have reproduced above. On 26-6-1952 that petitioner submitted his explanation. On 22-7-52 the enquiring officer Sri C. E. David recorded the statement of constable Braliamanand and adjourned the enquiry to 25-8-52 on which date Brahmanand was cross-examined and constable Najmul Hasan was examined and cross-examined. The petitioner was called upon to produce his witnesses on 28-10-1952. The petitioner presented himself along with five witnesses before Sri C. E. David and enquiring officer on 38-10-52. It is alleged that Shri David instead of recording the statements of these witnesses himself directed the statements of these witnesses to be recorded by the Ahalmad and it is alleged that while the statements of these witnesses were being recorded by the Ahalmad Sri David himself left the court room and those statements were not recorded in his hearing but in his absence. By an order dated 8th February, 1953 the petitioner was informed by Shri David that the charges against him were found proved and he was required to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service.