(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2.) The facts as alleged in the petitioner's affi-davit supporting the petition are these: He was appointed as a paid apprentice in the Collectorate at Mathura in 1948 and confirmed as a clerk in March 1951. He claims to have worked honestly and efficiently in the discharge of his duties. In February 1955 he was working as Moharrir Judicial In the Tehsil of Sadabad when the Collector of Mathura inspected the Tehsil. According to the petitioner's version, the Collector called him to his camp and enquired about the complaints of bribery which were alleged to be pending against the Tehsildar. The petitioner states that he refused to answer any question and was transferred to the Sadar Treasury at Mathura. On 16-5-1955 the petitioner was again summoned by the Collector at his resi-dence and was directed to explain if he had any proof that the Tehsildar had asked him (the peti-tioner) to accept bribes in pending cases. Tbis directions was contained in a written order which was served on the petitioner. He was asked to note down his reply on the same order which he did. Both the order and the reply have been attached to the petitioner's affidavit. The order of the Collector runs thus:
(3.) The petitioner alleges that the Collector was not satisfied with his answer, and he called the petitioner to his residence once again at 8 P. M. on the same day. He dictated an order to his stenographer and forced the petitioner to put his signature. A copy of this statement has been attached as annexure "A 3" of the petitioner's affidavit. It is in the form of questions and answers and consists of three questions. The document is as follows: "Statement of Sri Niranjan Prasad Treasury Clerk Mathura on S. A. dated 16-5-55. Question : When I called you today and asked you to explain about complaints of bribery against you you told me that as the Moharrir Judicial Sadabad you used to take about 25/- to 30/pet day from the litigant public? Is that true? Answer: I may be excused. I have small chil-dren at home. Question : This is not a reply to the question I have put above. I again ask you to reply if you said so or not? Answer : This was a private talk. (Then he said) I had said so I may be excused. Question : When I asked you to give this in writing did you or did not refuse to give this in writing? Answer : (The official refused to answer and said that he begs to be excused and went on repeat-ing this.) Sd. B. D. Jayal. Sd. Niranjan Pd. 16-5-55. 16-5-55.