(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Bhopal upholding the decree of the First Sub-Judge of Bhopal declaring that the suspension and removal of the plaintiff-respondent from the service of the former Bhopal State was illegal, ultra vires and inoperative and that the plaintiff-respondent still continued to be in service and in the post and cadre which he held at the time of his suspension.
(2.) THE material facts are that the plaintiff entcred the service of the former Bhopal state in 1948. After working in various capacities, he was appointed as a superintendent in the Home Department on 14-6-1952. In' August 1952, the bhopal Government received a report that the respondent Ladli Saran had misbehaved with one Miss Nirmala Kumari on 21-8-1952 at the Laxmi Talkies in ,bhopal. On receipt of this report, the Chief Commissioner made an order on 249-1952 suspending Ladli Saran and directing that an inquiry be made into the conduct of Ladli Saran by the Chief Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An enquiry was accordingly held. During the course of enquiry Ladli Saran cross-examined the witnesses produced to support the charge of misbehavior with Nirmal Kumari on 21st August 1952 and was also permitted to examine on his behalf such of the witnesses who were under the administrative control of the Bhopal Government and to produce other witnesses whom he wished to examine to rebut the charge. At the end of the enquiry, the Chief Secretary reported to the Government on 19th november 1952 that the charge against Ladli Saran that on 21st August 1952 he 'indulged in conduct unworthy of a public servant and a gentleman" by molesting the modesty of one Kumari Nirmala, daughter of Shri Har Narain, was established. A copy of the findings was given to the respondent. The findings of the Chief secretary were accepted by the Government and thereupon a notice was served on the respondent Ladli Saran on 8th December 1952 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from service for his misbehaviour and attempt to commit a criminal assault on Kumari Nirmala at Laxmi Talkies on 21st august 1952 at 6 P. M. On receipt of the charge and a copy of the findings, Ladli saran addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary on 8th December 1952 stating that copies of the statements of all the witnesses on which the findings were based be supplied to him. The statements which Ladli Saran demanded were, however not supplied to him. On 9th December, 1952, the respondent was informed that the chief Secretary's findings had been accepted by the Government and all that he was required now was to show cause against the proposed punishment. Thereafter on 12th December 1952, Ladli Saran presented an application before the Chief secretary pleading that he had a large family to maintain, that the punishment of dismissal would be a hardship to him and his family, and that he might be forgiven for his. lapse. This plea was, however, rejected and on 24th April 1953 the Chief commissioner, Bhopal, made an order removing Ladli Saran from service. Thereafter Ladli Saran moved the Chief Commissioner for a reconsideration of his cast. But this was also rejected. Ladli Saran then filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Bhopal, challenging the validity of his suspension and removal from service. This petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had the alternative remedy of a suit. Ladli Saran then instituted a suit in the Court of the First Sub-Judge, Bhopal, alleging that the order of removal from service passed against him by the government of Bhopal was ultra vires inasmuch as before passing this order the mandatory requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution had not been complied with. He also averred that the order of suspension was also illegal inasmuch as it amounted to his reduction in rank; that he could not be suspended without complying with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution; and that no departmental enquiry could be initiated against him unless he was prosecuted in a criminal Court for the alleged attempt to assault Nirmal Kumari.
(3.) THE learned Sub-Judge declared the suspension and removal from service of the plaintiff illegal mainly on the grounds: (i) that though the order of suspension was not an order reducing the plaintiff in rank, it was illegal and ultra vires as it was made contrary to Rule 49 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules without there being good and sufficient reasons for it; (ii) that the order of holding a departmental enquiry against the plaintiff for an act which constituted an offence under the Penal Code was illegal and ultra vires; and (iii) that the enquiry which was conducted against the plaintiff was in violation of the prescribed rules and principles of natural justice, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An appeal was then preferred by the defendant' state in the Court of the District Judge of Bhopal against the decision of the learned Sub-Judge. The learned District Judge took the view that the order of suspension did not amount to the plaintiff's reduction in rank and that it was not bad or illegal as it was made for a good and sufficient reason and it was not within the competence of any Court "to scrutinise into the goodness or sufficiency of the reason found by the Chief Commissioner". He, however, held that the plaintiff could not be punished as a result of the departmental enquiry for an act which amounted to an offence under the Indian Penal Code; that he should have been first prosecuted in a criminal Court for the alleged assault against Nirmala Kumari. While holding that the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification,' control and Appeal) Rules were complied with in the departmental enquiry and that in that enquiry the plaintiff was supplied with a statement of allegations on which the charge against him was based, the learned District Judge rejected the contention of the plaintiff that he was not supplied with a statement of circumstances proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders in the case. The learned District Judge held that "besides the circumstances mentioned in the charge and the allegations against the plaintiff, no other circumstances were proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders against him and no such circumstances existed in the case. " the learned District Judge also came to the conclusion that a copy of the findings of the Chief Secretary was not supplied to the plaintiff and as the enquiry held after the service of notice to the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be removed from service was limited to the extent of judging "the quantum of punishment" only, the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were violated and consequently the order of the plaintiff's removal from service was illegal. On this view, the learned District Judge upheld the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge of Bhopal.