DEVILAL TANWAR Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of termination dated 8. 11. 1997, annexure A10, passed by the District Judge Mandsaur (respondent no. 2) whereby his services have been terminated with effect from 12. 12. 1997. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 31. 3. 1998, Annexure A12, passed by the Registrar General (respondent no. 1) whereby his appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that by order dated 6. 6. 1995 District Judge, Mandsaur (respondent no. 2) appointed the petitioner on the post of Process Writer and posted him in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, neemuch. Condition No. 7 of the appointment order of petitioner provided that his services could be terminated without any prior notice if he was found either undisciplined or negligent in work. During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Neemuch (respondent no. 3 ). On 3. 9. 1997 respondent no. 2 sent a letter, Annexure A2, to the petitioner asking him to offer his explanation on the following three allegations of misconduct: (a) that despite payment of Rs. 79/- as process fee in Civil Suit No. 18a/90 to him on 31. 7. 1997 by Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, he neither deposited that amount nor issued the process (b) that he did not issue the process in Civil Suit No. 38a/96 despite submission of papers by Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, on 29. 7. 1997 for issuing process and (c) similarly he did not issue the process in Civil Suit No. 24b/93x7/95 despite submission of papers for the same on 25. 4. 1997. The petitioner, after receiving the letter, deposited Rs. 79/- on 8. 8. 1997 in the Court and issued the process in Civil Suit No. 18a/90, On that day he also issued the process in Civil suit No. 24b/93x7/95. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his reply, Annexure a3, on the same day and gave an explanation that he could not deposit the amount earlier because of the extra workload of another Court on him. Respondent no. 3 by letter dated 9. 9. 1997, Annexure R1, informed respondent no. 2 that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriating a sum of Rs. 79/- and recommended for his demotion. He also sought permission from respondent no. 2 to lodge a police report against the petitioner. In reply to this letter, respondent no. 2 by communication dated 17. 9. 1997, Annexure A9, authorized respondent no. 3 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. In the said communication respondent no. 2 also stated that he had separately ordered for a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 then lodged a written report on 18. 9. 1997, Annexure a8, at Police Station, Neemuch, alleging that the petitioner had temporarily misappropriated a sum of Rs. 79/- between 31. 7. 1997 and 8. 9. 1997 and this act of his was punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In the report respondent no. 3 also stated that it was being lodged after prior approval from respondent no. 2.

(3.) ON 4. 10. 1997 respondent no. 2 issued a charge sheet, Annexure A5, against the petitioner on the charge that he did not deposit Rs. 79/- in Civil Suit No. 18a/90 despite having paid that amount by Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, on 31. 7. 1997. In the charge sheet the names of respondent no. 3, clerk of Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate, and Reader were cited as witnesses and the list of documents, apart from other documents, referred to a letter dated 9. 9. 1997 of respondent no. 1, statement dated 9. 9. 1997 of the clerk of Shri Bhatnagar and also the first information report.