TUSTU CHARAN SAHA Vs. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HOOGHLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was a comprehensive one. challenging the validity of several orders, the Rule was issued only on ground No. VIII, and at the hearing, the only point pressed for the Petitioner has been that the last paragraph of the order at Annex. K to the petition (p. 46), made by the Collector (Respondent No. 1), is not valid and that the Petitioner should get his full emoluments during the period of suspension which was vacated by the order at Annex. K dated November 2, 1964.

(2.) The impugned order arose in this way. The Petitioner was, at the material time, a lower division assistant in the Hooghly Collectorate. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving the charge -sheet at Annex. A to the petition on May 8, 1964. The last part of the charge -sheet which called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed or suitably punished contained the following order:

(3.) The proceedings were eventually terminated by the order dated November 2, 1964, at Annex. K. By this order the Collector found the Petitioner guilty of charges 2, 6 and 7 and observed that though "the charges proved against him are grave", he would like "to give him the last chance to amend himself". Instead of awarding the "punishment of dismissal", therefore, he ordered -