HARISCHANDRA PATHAK Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against an order dated 27 February 1963 whereby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, dismissed the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are these. In the year 1956, the petitioner was recruited as co-operative and panchayat inspector. Subsequently, he was required to work as a co-operative extension officer. At the material time, he was employed on that post in the Amarwnra Block of Ctihindwara district. By an order dated 17 February 1961, the Collector of Chhindwara suspended the petitioner and directed that a departmental enquiry be held against him. In due course, the chargesheet enumerating six charges (Annexure C) and the statement of allegations (Annexure D) were served on the petitioner and the enquiry was held by Sri S. H. Naidu, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhindwara, who was appointed by the Collector to be the enquiry officer. During the pendency of this enquiry, the Collector found It necessary to serve upon the petitioner additional charge 1 (Annexure I) with a statement of allegations (Annexure J) on which that charge was based and required him, by a notice dated 24 October 1961, to submit his written statement in respect of that charge. Thus even that charge became the subject-matter of enquiry which admittedly was, except in two respects duly held. On 15 April 1962, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who, however, remanded the case for (i) examining the petitioner afresh, (ii) taking evidence about the death of some of the persons mentioned in the first charge, and (iii) examining the Examiner of Questioned Documents about certain questioned documents. The enquiry officer carried out the directions of the Registrar and submitted his additional report on 28 January 1963. Thereupon, agreeing with the conclusions of the enquiry officer, the Registrar issued to the petitioner a show-cause notice dated SO January 1963. After the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, the Registrar passed the final order dated 27 February 1963 holding that only charges 1 and 4 and the additional charges were proved against the petitioner and inflicting upon him a separate punishment for each fault. For the fault covered by the charge 1, he was removed from service. For that covered by the charge 4, he was permanently reduced by Rs. 5. For the delinquency specified in the additional charge, he was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government, which referred the matter to the State Public Service Commission. The Commission held that while the charges 1 and 4 were not proved, the additional charge was duly established and the penalty of dismissal was, having regard to the nature of the delinquency, merited. As advised by the Public Service Commission, the State Government rejected the petitioner's appeal. He has called in question his dismissal from service upon the several grounds enumerated in Para. 18 of his petition. In their return, the respondents have traversed all those grounds and supported the action taken in regard to the petitioner. One of the grounds urged before us is that, since the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and not the Collector, was the appointing authority, the Collector could not suspend the petitioner, initiate any enquiry against him, frame charges for such enquiry or appoint any officer to conduct the enquiry. We are unable to accept this contention. What cannot be delegated is the ultimate responsibility to dismiss or remove a civil servant so as to destroy a protection like the one afforded by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution-Rangachari v. Secretary of State for India A. I. R. 1937 P. C. 27 and Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court Any other power, in regard to which there is no constitutional protection or mandatory provision of law or rule having the force of law, may be validly delegated. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of War Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh 1963-II L. L. J. 444, such matter is entirely in the discretion of the appointing authority. In the instant case, as would appear from the memorandum No. 22876/55775353/ xxii/diii/ Estt/59 reproduced below, the Collector had, in this matter, exercised certain powers, which had been delegated to him: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_83_TLMPH0_1965Html1.htm</FRM> In view of the powers which had been competently delegated to the Collector, there is no substance in the contention that he could not initiate the enquiry against the petitioner.

(3.) IT is clear from what we have already stated, and it is also not disputed by the learned Government Advocate, that the State Government accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission to the effect that only the additional charge was established against the petitioner and that having regard to its serious nature, the penalty of dismissal was merited. The second ground pressed before us is that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against that charge which alone survived against him and that, in any event, the conclusion that the charge was established is based on no evidence. As we would show in the sequel, this ground is well-founded and must be accepted.