(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 7th February, 1955.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Office of the District Registrar, Anantapur, in or about March, 1947. In October, 1953, the Supreintendent of Police, Special Branch, C.I.D., gave information to the District Registrar, Anantapur, that the petitioner was participating in the activities of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh and that he attended the R.S.S. Training Camp at Vijayawada from 2nd May, 1953 to 2nd June, 1953. Thereupon, the District Registrar issued to the petitioner a notice, dated 19th November, 1953, wherein he stated that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner attended the R.S.S. Training Camp organised by the Provincial Ra htriya Swayam Sevak Sangh at Vijayawada from 2nd May, 1953 to 2nd June, 1953 and also associated with others in subversive activities in such manner as ,to raise doubts about his reliability and that consequently he was liable to be compulsorily retired. The petitioner was given 14 days' time from the date of the receipt of the notice to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. On 30th November, 1953, the petitioner invited the attention of the District Registrar to Article 311 of the Constitution of India and pointed out that, until he was furnished with a copy of the reasonable grounds he would not be in a position to defend himself. He also requested him to furnish him with all the material on which the charge was based and also the reasons according to which the charge was framed with reference to the material available to him. He also expressed his apprehensions that the District Registrar was prejudiced against him. On 12th December, 1953, the Registrar, without furnishing the necessary particulars, replied that the charge was specific and enquired whether he wished to make any representations on the action proposed to be taken against him and whether he desired to be heard in person. He was also informed that, if his replies were not received before 25th December, 1953, it would be presumed that he admitted the allegations and had no representations to submit on the action proposed to be taken against him. On 24th December. 1953, the petitioner denied the allegations made against him. He prominently brought out in his representations that the notice did not specify the subversive activitie wherein he was alleged to have taken part with others and that till the said activities were specified with sufficient particulars, he was unable to reply more specifically to the allegations. He expressed his wish that he should be heard in person. He alle ed that the rules were ultra vires and void and that they offended the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India. On 24th December, 1953, the Registrar directed the petitioner to appear before him in person on 23rd January, 1954. On 23rd January 1954, the petitioner appeared before the Registrar, and made a statement. Therein he stated that he took causal leave on the 2nd, 4th and 5th of May, 1953, with permission to avail Sunday the 3rd of May, 1953, to proceed to Vijayawada along with his friends, the members of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh to get himself treated there for his ailment. There, he got himself examined by Dr. Dakshinamurthi on 3rd May, 1953, who advised him to take medical leave for 45 days. He admitted that he attended the R.S.S. Training Camp in the S.R.R. and C.V.R. College at Viyayawada and participated in its physical activities. After 13th May, 1953, as he developed a guinea worm abscess in his right foot, he was not able to take any active part in physical activities but used to go and watch the activities of others in the training camp. After 2Oth May, 1953, he was confined to bed. On 31st May, 1953, the abscess was opened and he left Vijayawada on 2nd June, 1953 and reached Anantapur on 3rd June, 1953. Again, he repeated before the Registrar that he did not take any part in any subversive activities and that, if he was given a chance to know with whom and in what manner he associated with others in subversive activities, he would be able to clarify his position further. He asserted that the Sangh's activities were never subversive and that the Sangh was neither a political nor subversive organisation. He pleaded that, except being a member of the said o ganisation from the year 1947, he was not guilty of any subversive activities. He complained that as no grounds on which the charges have been framed were served on him, he was handicapped in his defence. The District Registrar in his order dated 16th June, 1954, after narrating the aforesaid circumstances proceeded to state thus :
(3.) It will be seen that the only reason given by the Registrar for the drastic action was that the petitioner was a member of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh and took part in its activities and that the Government held that the said Sangh was a subversive organisation. The petitioner made representations on 16th June, 1954, wherein he pointed out that he was not aware of the fact that the Government had held the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh to be a subversive organisation and r quested that he might be furnished with a copy of such a finding by the Government and that no evidence in support of that finding was recorded before him. He fu ther alleged that the R.S.S. activities in general and particularly those, in which he was alleged to have participated, had always been free from subversive activities and that, if a copy of the Government's decision was furnished to him, he would be in a position to satisfy the enquiring officer that it could have no bearing on the present events. He specifically requested that he should be given a hearing after he was supplied with a copy of the resolution of the Government on R.S.S. activities. Subsequently, the Committee appointed by the Government consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Revenue Secretary and the Law Secretary of the Government of Andhra and the Deputy Inspector-General of Railways and C.I.D. considered the representations made by the petitioner and, after giving him a personal hearing, recommended his compulsory retirement from service and the Government of Andhra made an order, dated 3rd February, 1955, directing his compulsory retirement. On those facts, Sri Manavala Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised before us various points questioning the validity of the said order, which we would proceed to consider seriatim.