SHYAM LAL ROSHAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner on 29-7-1959 by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner was employed as a senior clerk in law, Labour and Local Self Government Department of the former Pepsu State on 15-6-1951. On 9-11-1951, his services were transferred to the department of Agriculture, Punjab, as a senior clerk. He was promoted as Head Assistant on 14-7-1953 and was deputed to work on 23-11-1953 and was deputed to work on 23-111953 with S. Ranbir Singh, Assistant Director of Agriculture Sirhind. That office latter shifted to Patiala and the petitioner worked there upto 30-5-1954. In those days, the petitioner's relations with S. Ranbir Singh became strained and on account of some reports made against the petitioner, he was transferred to Sangrur. No further action was taken against the petitioner on the basis of the reports made by S. Ranbir Singh. Form June, 1954 till the date of the petitioner's suspension, he continued to work as Head Assistant at Sangrur. During mot of this period, S. Mukhtiar Singh, District Agriculture Officer, was the petitioner's superior but on 24-11955, S. Ranbir Singh was also transferred from Patiala to Sangrur. On 11-21955, the petitioner applied for sick leave on medical certificate. Up to that time, S. Ranbir Singh had not made any report against the petitioner. Taking advantage of the petitioner's absence from office, however, S. Ranbir Singh tried to wreak his own vengeance and on 23-2-1955, the petitioners was informed that his leave application had been rejected and that he should attend the office immediately. The petitioner on account of illness was unable even to move from his bed. The same evening, however, the petitioner was informed that he had been placed under suspension. On 11-3-1955, S. Ranbir Singh also lodged a First Information Report with the police alleging embezzlement of cash held by the petitioner. After trial under section 406/409, Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was acquitted on 31st August, 1956, by Shri Shamsher Singh Atri, Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur. On 19-10-1957, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. An enquiry into this matter was held by Shri Gurmel Singh, Marketing Officer, Agriculture Department. During the course of this enquiry which was held on 16th and 17th of February, 1959, six witnesses were examined against the petitioner. According to the averments contained in the writ petition; when these witnesses were being examined, the petitioner was directed to stay out of the room of the Enquiry Officer and their statements were recorded in the petitioner's absence. The petitioner was, however, given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses after their statements-in-chief had been recorded. It is complained in the petitioner that the petitioner could not effectively cross-examine those witnesses because their examination-in-chief had taken place behind the petitioner's back. The petitioner also submitted written questions to be put to S. Ranbir Singh who was the principal witness but so question out of them was put to him. The petitioner thereupon made a written protest to the Enquiry Officer against this procedure but without any effect. The petitioner has further alleged that he made a number of oral requests for the production of certain records but they were not made available to him. It is unnecessary to refer to any further allegations contained in the writ petition as they were not pressed at the Bar.

(2.) In the written statement it has been admitted that the statement of S. Ranbir Singh was recorded when the petitioner was not in the room of the Enquiry Officer but it is averred that this was due to the fact that the petitioner's objection to the presence of S. Ranbir Singh in the room of the Enquiry officer when the other witnesses were being examined was overruled and that the petitioner thereupon himself remained out of the room of the Enquiry Officer. It has been pleaded, however, that the petitioner availed of the opportunity to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses and that he did not fully in the case of S. Ranbir Singh.

(3.) The argument on which the petitioner has concentrated is that rules of natural justice have been recorded in the presence and that it being admitted that S. Ranbir Singh's evidence was recorded in his absence, the enquiry is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. In this connection my attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the petition which it is desirable to reproduce in extenso: