KAILASHCHAND RATAN CHAND Vs. GENERAL MANAGER ORDNANCE FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case, who was employed as a machinist in Ordnance factory, Khamaria (Jabalpur), seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the General Manager of the Factory on 5th June 1964 removing him from service. The order of the General Manager was upheld in appeal by the Director general of Ordnance Factories, Calcutta, and a writ is also sought for quashing the order of the Director General of Ordnance Factories.

(2.) THE impugned order was passed as a sequel to a departmental enquiry held against the applicant on the charge that on 12th February 1964 at about 7. 30 p. m. he, along with two other workers of the Factory, followed from a bus-stand the wife and daughter of one Shri Raman, also a worker in the Factory, and teased them. The departmental enquiry was held under the Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). At the enquiry, the charge was found to be prima facie established, and on 7th May 1965 the General Manager gave a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service because of his misconduct in following the two ladies. A copy of the propeedings of the Court of enquiry was also furnished to the petitioner. In reply to the show-cause notice, the applicant submitted his explanation which did not satisfy the respondent General Manager. He accordingly made the impugned order removing the applicant from service.

(3.) THE petitioner assails the order passed by the General Manager removing him from service on the grounds that it was made in violation of Article 311 (2) of the constitution and Rule 15 of the Rules; that at the enquiry some material witnesses, including Smt. Raman and her daughter, were not examined; that he was not given an opportunity to lead evidence to support his plea that at the time of the alleged incident he was working in the Factory; and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charge of misconduct levelled against him. It is further contended by the applicant that even if he followed the two ladies, his act in doing so did not involve any moral turpitude so as to constitute gross misconduct justifying his removal.