STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HUSSEIN KASIM KANHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the appellate order confirming the order passed by the trial Court which has set aside the order dated June 28, 1951 passed by the Special Superintendent, Land Records, Ratnagiri, removing the plaintiff from the post of a temporary Cadestral Surveyor. Khot Survey Department, Ratnagiri, as it was alleged to be null and void and inoperative. The declaration given by the trial Court that the plaintiff continued to be in service, is also confirmed by the appellate Court. The facts of this case are as follows:-The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a temporary Cadestral Surveyor on February 15, 11947, and he continued as such till June 28, 1951, on which date he was removed from service. On February 12, 1950, complaints were received against the plaintiff from the villages of Vaghrat that the plaintiff was corrupt and used to accept food etc. without paying for the same and he also used to demand money as illegal gratification from them. Upon investigation being made, the plaintiff was suspended on January 4, 1951. By a notice dated February 6, 1951, (Ex. 34), he was directed to appeal before the Special Superintendent, Land Records who was to record his statement in regard to the complaints received against the plaintiff. On February 20, 1951, the Special Superintendent Land Records, examined certain witnesses in the presence of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff cross-examined them. Thereafter, on February 21, 1951, the Officer in charge went to the village and recorded the statements of 3 more witnesses, but not in the presence of the plaintiff. On the next day i. e. , February 22, 1951, a charge-sheet (Ex. 5-A) was submitted, and it was served on the plaintiff. Five charges were framed against the plaintiff and he was asked to show cause why action should not taken against him. He was also asked to state whether he wanted an oral inquiry.

(2.) ON March 3, 1951, the plaintiff submitted his written statement (Ex. 45) in which he gave explanations in regard to the various charges while denying all of them. Finally, however he stated that he had nothing more to say orally in this matter. It appears from the record that a show-cause notice was served on the plaintiff - Ex. 55 dated 22-5-1951 - to which a report made by the Special Superintendent, Land Records, on Charges Nos. 4 and 5 proved against the plaintiff was annexed. The plaintiff was asked to show cause why the services should not be dispensed with for misbehaviour. By Ex. 47 dated May 31, 1951, the plaintiff asked for time to put in the written Statement as he wanted to inspect certain documents, Eight days' time was given to the plaintiff, and he filed his written Statement on June 6, 1951. Thereafter, by the order date June 28, 1951, the plaintiff was removed from service. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed the present suit on March 4, 1958.

(3.) THE plaintiff's contention is that no inquiry was, in fact, held against him, that he was given no sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that, therefore, the order passed removing him from service is bad and should be set aside. The government denied that those witnesses who were examined on February 20, 1951 were, in fact, cross-examined by the plaintiff. It could not, therefore, be said that no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given to the plaintiff. After the charge-sheet was supplied, no oral inquiry was held because the plaintiff in his reply to the show cause notice did not desire an oral inquiry in the matter. The officer holding the inquiry had the right not to hold the inquiry if the officer who was charge-sheeted did not demand such an oral inquiry. It was further the contention of the State that all the formalities required under R. 55 in regard to the submission of the charge-sheet, recording the finding and the final show cause notice were properly gone through by the Inquiry Officer. There was, therefore, according to the State, no substance in the suit.