NARAYAN PRASAD TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and the application numbered 13 of 1957 are petitions by Sub -Inspectors of Excise dismissed from service by the orders of the State Government in similar circumstances. They had been dismissed after inquiry and punishment notices, by the Commissioner of Excise. Following a High Court judgment, in what Government considered comparable case, the order of dismissal, by the Commissioner was set aside, the officer formally re -instated and] simultaneously suspended, served with a fresh punishment notice and now dismissed by the Government itself.

(2.) IN each of them certain general arguments have been made applicable, from the petitioner's view -point, to the other case as well. These have been considered in the judgment of the respective petitions in which the particular grounds have been specially emphasised.

(3.) IT may be noted that the petitioner was proceeded against on a number of charges all relating to one incident in connection with the levy of duty (excise) on. a consignment of asphalt on which taxes were payable. It is however, unnecessary to go into the details of the charge itself. There was an inquiry in the presence of the petitioner held by the Inspector of Excise. He gave a report to the Superintendent of Excise of the District, who in his turn asked the petitioner if he would care to submit any further explanation in writing He gave a reply to which I shall refer later on, and in the meanwhile sent the report to the Commissioner of Excise. He accepted the findings of the inquirying authority, namely the Inspector, issued punishment notice and after studying the cause dismissed him by his order dated 13 -7 -55. Sometime later the High Court held that another Excise Officer named Shri Abid Hussain, should not have been dismissed by the Excise Commissioner, and could have been dismissed only by the Government. On the impression that this officer's position was analogous to that of Abid Hussain, the Government got the order of dismissal set aside and the officer accord dingly reinstated. Simultaneously that is, on the same day 19 -1 -56 and at the same hour another order was passed suspending the petitioner with effect from the date of the original suspension namely 12 -7 -1956. I shall consider separately the propriety or otherwise of the suspension order being made retrospective; it need only be noted here that to setting aside of the earlier dismissal order by the Commissioner, the reinstatement, and the suspension are as it were one order. Soon after a fresh punishment notice to show cause on the findings already served on him, he had no new grounds to make, nor did he ask leave to lead any further evidence, but argued that the whole proceeding was illegal. The Government now recorded the order of dismissal adopting the same report and on the same grounds as were the basis of the dismissal by the Commissioner.