RAMESH CHANDRA VERMA Vs. R D VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Chief Engineer, Local Self-Government, Engineering Department, dated 2-11-1955 and the order of the State Government dated 16-11-1956 refecting the appeal of the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus directing the parties to treat the petitioner in service with all the advantages which the petitioner would have been entitled to in the normal course of events with effect from the date of his appointment.

(2.) This case has a long history and earlier facts will be referred to at its proper place. Briefly the facts, however, are that up to 12-2-1950 the petitioner was working as work-agent in the Local Self-Government Engineering Department, Uttar Pradesh, in the Kanpur Division and thereafter as an Electrical and Mechanical Overseer. The Chief Engineer Sri R. D. Verma by his order dated 17-12-1952 terminated the services of the petitioner. An appeal to the State Government against that order was rejected in April 1953. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court against the two orders referred to above which was numbered as Writ No. 636 of 1953 challenging the validity of those orders and the petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court on 24-11-1953. On 1-12-1953 the petitioner reported for duty but on 23-12-1953 he was suspended from service and was asked to give an explanation to the previous charges made against him in the year 1952. A reply was given by the petitioner. He was again dismissed from service by the order of the Chief Engineer dated 20-5-1954 with effect from 12-5--1954. Another petition, was filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which was numbered as Writ No. 883 of 1954. This was also allowed by this Court on 10-1-1955. On 14-1-1955 the petitioner again reported for duty but he was again served with an order dated 7-2-1955 under the signature of the Chief Engineer suspending him from service and he was asked to submit his written explanation to those previous charges framed against him in 1952. A reply was sent by the petitioner to those charges. According to the petitioner three charges out of the four served on him were the old charges and the fourth was a new one. On 21-3-1955 the petitioner received a letter from the Chief Engineer asking him to furnish within seven days the complete list of witnesses with their correct names and addresses whom the petitioner desired to be summoned for his defence. The petitioner prayed for time but no extension of time was granted to him. As the petitioner apprehended that he will not have a fair trial he came up to this Court again under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of a writ petition which was numbered as Writ No. 506 of 1955. That was rejected on 6-5-1956 at the preliminary hearing. In that petition there was a prayer for a writ of prohibition directing the opposite parties not to proceed with the enquiry on the ground of prejudice. Thereafter by an order dated 20-7-1955 Sri H. P. Chose, the Personal Assistant to the Chief Engineer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The hearing of the case was fixed for 26-7-1955 onwards and the petitioner was asked to attend the office of the Chief Engineer in that connection regularly. The petitioner gave his written explanation. Two provisional replies were submitted to the charge sheets dated 7-2-1955 under protest as according to the petitioner he was not given sufficient opportunity to inspect the records and had not been provided with copies of documents. After enquiry the petitioner received a show-cause notice to which he replied and by an order dated 2-11-1955 the petitioner was dismissed. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against that order to the State Government which was rejected by the Government by its order dated 16-11-1956 and the present petition was thereafter filed in this Court on 7-1-1957 and was admitted.

(3.) From the statement of facts given above it will appear that the petitioner had approached this Court thrice before for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Twice against an order of dismissal and the last time during the pendency of the enquiry for a writ of prohibition directing the enquiring officer not to proceed further with the enquiry. The charges substantially were the same as those served on the petitioner in the year 1952. Three of the charges arc common and the fourth charge was added when the present enquiry was started.