M V RANGA RAO Vs. DIRECTOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by an Upper Division (Grade II) Assistant in the office of the Director of Forests, Orissa, who was dismissed from service by the Director of Forests by his order dated 21-7-1955.

(2.) THE petitioner who is a resident of Berhampur was employed as an Upper division (Grade II) assistant in the aforesaid office at Cuttack from 12-4-1950. On 15-5-1954 the then Director of Forests, Shri B. P. Basu drew up proceedings against him in his office Order No. 6436/2f-161/53 and framed the following charges;

(3.) THE petitioner submitted a lengthy explanation on 19-6-1954, to the charges, in which, among other grounds he urged that the alterations and suspicious corrections in the several vouchers referred to in the charges were all made prior to their being put up before the then Director of Forests, Shri D. H. Khan, for his signature and that consequently there was no fraud in the whole transaction. On 21-4-1955, the Director informed the petitioner that an enquiry would be made on 2-5-1955 in his office at Cuttack and called upon him to appear before the Director in Connection with that enquiry and also to remain at head quarters until further orders. He was further warned that if he failed to appear the enquiry would be made ex parte. In reply to that letter, the petitioner made a representation dated 29-41955, requesting the Director to postpone the enquiry to the last week of May 1955 and saying that he had some financial difficulties and domestic troubles. But it appears that the Director of Forests refused to adjourn the enquiry and held it on 2-5-1955 in his office. Several witnesses including Shri D. H. Khan, who was the director of Forests during the relevant period, were also examined during the enquiry. But as the enquiry was made ex parte there was no cross-examination by the petitioner. Then, on 26-5-1955, the Director of Forests, after reviewing the evidence and the explanation given by the petitioner held that the charges were proved and that as they were very grave he proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service and also to direct him to make good the loss caused to the Government by his conduct. He therefore called upon him to show cause, within fifteen days from the date of that order, as to why he should not be dismissed from Government service and why the loss caused to the Government should not be made good by him.