JAGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicability or the extension of the rule laid down in the State of Mysore V/s. K. Manche Gowda, 1964 AIR(SC) 506is the primary auestion which falls for determination in this writ petition.

(2.) Jagir Singh, petitioner, joined service as a patwari in the pre-partition days in Lvallpur District and on migration to India during the year 1947 he joined in Gurgaon District as Kanungo and was later promoted as Naib Tehsildar in 1951. He served in that capacitv at various places of posting till the year 1966 and in paragraph 5 of the petition it is his explicit case that he having worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and satisfactorily, his service record was good and in recognition thereof he had received Parman Patras from the Government of India.

(3.) The Collector of Ludhiana by his order dated January 18. 1969 charge-sheeted the petitioner, and Shri J. S. Puri, Magistrate, Ludhiana. was appointed as Enquiry Officer who submitted his detailed report. Annexure D/1 on May 20, 1969. The gravamen of the first charge against the petitioner was that on October 19, 1968 at about 9.45 A. M. he had destroyed valuable revenue records in the office of the Kanungo. Ludhiana, and his conduct would show that his honesty was doubtful and he was unworthy of trust as also disloyal to the Government. The second charge was regarding his absence from dutv for nearly 13i days on different occasions on which he had not done any Government work. The Enauirv Officer found the charge of destroying and tearing off the revenue record against the petitioner to be fully proved. On the second charge of being absent from duty, he held that the petitioner had not sot approved his tour programmes and these tours were undertaken without approval, but it was not established clearly whether the petitioner was on tour or absent on the relevant dates. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice Annexure F/1 dated July 3. 1969 reauiring him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service bv the Collector Ludhiana. In pursuance to this notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed written reply. He was also personally heard bv the Collector and thereafter Annexure 'C dated August 12, 1969 was recorded bv the Collector Ludhiana dismissing the petitioner. Therein, after a detailed consideration, he found that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was nothing but an assertion of innocence and did not even remotely absolve him from the gross charges of misconduct and indiscipline. The petitioner being aggrieved with the report of the Enquiry Officer then appealed to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who vide Annexure dated April 20, 1970 dismissed the same. However, therein the Commissioner made a passing reference to the poor service record of the petitioner apparentlv to repel the assertion on his behalf that his 30 years service record was clean and creditable. A further revision Annexure 'A' was carried to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. Punjab, who, whilst dismissing the same on October 13 1970, noticed the context in which the remarks about the poor service record of the petitioner had been made and also recorded that the punishing authority, namely, the Collector had not at all taken this into consideration when imposing the penalty of dismissal.