TIKARAM WINDWAR Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in Government service as a sub-Auditor. The petitioner was declared quasi permanent from 25th January 1966. While posted at Sanda in District Sagar, the petitioner was twice convicted under section 34 (6) of the Police Act. By order dated 24th February 1972, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that he was twice convicted by the criminal Court. No inquiry was held before the order of dismissal was passed and no notice was issued to the petitioner for hearing him. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the order of dismissal.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate relies upon Rule 19 of the Madhya pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for the proposition that as the petitioner was convicted by the criminal Court, no inquiry was necessary and it was also not necessary to notice the petitioner. Rule 19 reads as follows :

(3.) RULES 14 to 18 lay down elaborate procedure holding regular departmental enquiry against a Government servant. Rule 19 provides for those cases where the inquiry under Rules 14 to 18 is not necessary. The language of Rule 19 is identical with Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1968. Rule 14 of the Railway Servants Rules was construed by the Supreme Court in Div. Personnel Officer v. T. R. Challappan, (A 1 R 1975 SC 2216. ). It was held that although no elaborate inquiry is necessary, yet the words "may consider the circumstances of the case" postulate consideration of all aspects after hearing the aggrieved party in a summary inquiry. The following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court is relevant on this point :