JAMES BUSHI Vs. COLLECTOR OF GANJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the district Collector of Ganjam dated the 2nd March 1957, dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner was serving in Ganjam Collectorate for about 13 years and rose to the rank of Head-Clerk of the Civil Supplies Branch of that Coliectorate at chatrapur. In 1951-52 the petitioner was working as the Head-clerk of the Civil supplies Branch of the Sub-Collector's Office at Berhampur. On receipt of information about corruption while he was working in that capacity, a preliminary confidential investigation was made by some C. I. D. Officers of the Anti-Corruption department and on the basis of that investigation, Government, in the Cabinet department, addressed a letter to the District Collector of Ganjam on the 7th october 1955 (vide annexure B) requesting him to draw up departmental proceedings against the petitioner for disciplinary action. Government further suggested that a Police officer of the rank of Inspector, of the anti-Corruption Department, named Sri J. N. Ghosh, might marshal the evidence against the petitioner during such departmental enquiry. On receipt of that letter the District Collector Magistrate of Ganjam on the 23rd October, 1955 framed four charges against the petitioner and directed the departmental enquiry to be held by the Sub-Collector of Berhampur. Before that Officer Sri J. N. Ghosh marshalled the evidence of the prosecution and twenty-seven witnesses were examined against the petitioner. The Sub-Collector then submitted a report to the District Collector on the 31st August 1956, holding the petitioner guilty of all the four charges and recommending his dismissal from service. A copy of the Sub-Collector's report was sent by the District Magistrate to the petitioner and he was called upon to show CM use why he may not be dismissed from service. This notice was issued obviously in compliance with the provisions of article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The petitioner then filed; a lengthy representation to the District Collector, who after reviewing the entire evidence collected by the Enquiring Officer (Sub-Collector) and considering the representation made by the petitioner, held that the charges were established and passed final orders on the 2nd March 1957 dismissing him from service.

(3.) MR. G. K. Misra on Behalf of the petitioner urged that the petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity to defend himself for the following reasons: