CHANDRA KISHORE Vs. ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a lower division clerk working In the office of the Accountant-Genera, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. A charge-sheet, dated 13 February 1963, was served upon him and he was required to submit his written statement to the charge. The charge levelled was In these words: That the said Chandra Kishore, while functioning as lower division clerk, office of the Accountant-General, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, during the year 1962, without the previous sanction of the Government, engaged himself in the business of chemists and druggists at Allahabad with effect from 13 August 1962 Inasmuch as he himself ran the shop, Raman Chemists and Drugglsts, in the name of his father, Sri Chauharja Prasad, under licence Nos. 23 and 18 dated IS August 1963 obtained from the District Officer of Health, Allahabad, in favour of the said firm, and he sold medicines and Issued cash memoranda in respect of such sale at the said shop. He thereby contravened Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The petitioner submitted hid written statement and, after Inquiry, the inquiry officer gave his findings on 11 July 1963. On 6 November 1963, the Accountant-General gave show-cause notice to the petitioner stating that he was In fall agreement with the findings of the Inquiry officer and required the petitioner to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be Inflicted upon him. The petitioner showed cause but, by order, dated 25 January 1964, the Accountant-General removed the petitioner from service with effect from the date of his order. Against the order of the Accountant-General, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, New Delhi. He was Informed by a communication, dated 21 May 1966, that his appeal had been rejected. Thereupon he filed this writ petition.

(2.) TWO main contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner: The first la that, on the charge as framed and on the finding on that charge, the petitioner has not contravened the provisions of Rule 12. The second is that the Inquiry officer having found the charge levelled to be disproved, the petitioner could not be punished on the basis of some other charge of which the petitioner had not been given any notice.

(3.) THE relevant portion of Rule 12 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), reads thus: