B S GURAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was serving as a Colonel at the Headquarter Western Command, Chandimandir was suspended from duty on 17. 8. 1990 and, thereafter, vide order dated 27. 1. 1993 he was dismissed from service. Before the dismissal, no enquiry was held and no show cause notice was given to him. Of course a criminal case was being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the order of his dismissal and also seeks promotion to the higher post which according to him he would have got if he had not been dismissed from service. The petitioner contends that his dismissal in the above manner is against the law and in the absence of any show cause notice, he was not in a position to meet the allegations against him because he was not aware of the same. He challenges the order of his dismissal on the ground that it is punitive in nature and that the dismissal could have been awarded only after the conviction by the court martial. He also contends that there was no decision in regard to the impracticability or inexpediency of a trial against him. The petitioner further contends that he had no opportunity to prove his innocence and that he was condemned unheard. The petitioner further contends that because he was suspended, he could not be dismissed from service without being reinstated.

(2.) THE respondents in their written statement have denied the contentions made in the petition and have contended that the reasons which weighed with the Central Government in coming to the conclusion of inexpediency of service of a show cause notice are recorded in the case file and these may be perused by the court only, because the petitioner has no right to peruse the same. It is contended that the petitioner was blame-worthy of a very serious misconduct and that the action of the Government was justified. It is also stated in the written statement that the CBI had requested the GOC-in-CHQ Western Command that the list of properties may not be shown to the petitioner as the investigation was under progress and that showing of the same to him would not be in the interest of the case. It is contended that according to the CBI authorities the petitioner had amassed properties beyond his known sources of income and his character or conduct as an officer and gentleman was impugned.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. R. S. Randhawa, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Mr. S. K. Pipat, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.