SUBODH RANJAN Vs. MAJOR N A OCALLAGHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ for cancellation of certain orders passed against the petitioner in March 1951 and on 25-4-1952 imposing certain punishments for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as an Overseer in the Military Engineering Service and also for quashing of an order D/- 10-4-1952 by which the petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 10-7-1952.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Overseer in the Military Engineering Service in 1940 under the Government of India. In 1942 he was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer which was re-designated as Superintendent, Grade I, with effect from January 1947. On 16-6-1949 a departmental enquiry was started against the petitioner on a charge of throwing away certain stores which were the property of Fort William. As a result, of the enquiry a warning order was made against the petitioner in or about March 1951. As the authorities were not satisfied with merely passing a warning order against the petitioner, a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on or about 28-2-1952, and it appears that the petitioner was held guilty of the said charge and it was directed that Rs. 50/- would be deducted from the pay and allowance due to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the orders as mala fide. It further appears that prior to the said orders the petitioner had also been charged with absence from duty without leave and for disobeying an order of transfer made by the authorities in the department in which he was serving and the petitioner was found guilty of the charge of disobedience of the transfer order and it is alleged that he was reverted to the post of Superintendent, Grade II. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of reversion but the same was rejected. The petitioner then gave notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. and has filed a suit in this Court being suit No. 975 of 1952 which is still pending. It is alleged that after the service of notice under Section 80, the petitioner was falsely and maliciously charged with neglect of duty regarding the recording of sizes and lengths of certain wooden beams handed over to a contractor for sawing and for failing to obtain the cut pieces from the contractor and to record measurements of sawing made by the contractor. The petitioner submitted his defence to the said charges on or about 24-10-1951. On or about 10-4-1952 notice was served upon the petitioner intimating that his service would stand terminated after three months with effect from 10-7-1952. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order on the ground that it is mala fide and also as being made in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the affidavit in opposition affirmed by respondent 1 it is denied that the orders in question were passed mala fide and some facts are set out explaining the circumstances under which the impugned orders were made.