T L TANDON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two petitioners brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which are Civil Writs Nos. 845 of 1957 and 1225 of 1958. Both of them have been filed by Shri T. L. Tondon, who at one time, was a gazetted officer in the Bank of Patiala (Previously known as the Patiala State Bank) but who has since been dismissed. The earlier petition is directed against the order of suspension and the holding of an inquiry into the various charges levelled against him and the latter is directed against the order of his dismissal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these petitions are as under: On 17-10-1945, the petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in the Patiala State Bank and was placed in the grade of 250-15-340. According to the rules then in force, the appointment of a person, who was not the subject of the Patiala State, could only be made with the previous sanction of His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala. As the petitioner was not a subject of the Patiala State, the Board of Directors had to obtain sanction for his appointment from His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala and this sanction was obtained by them on 15-101-1945. On 18-9-1946, the petitioner was promoted to a gazetted job under the orders of His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala. By a general command issued by the Maharaja of Patiala the powers of appointment and dismissal of gazetted officers of the Bank were reserved by the Maharaja to himself. On 20-8-1948, Patiala and certain other State in East Punjab integrated with each other of form a Union known as the PEPSU State (the Patiala and East Punjab States Union). The Patiala State Bank was thereafter named as the Bank of Patiala. The Maharaja of Patiala became the Rajpramukh of the newly formed PEPSU State, and on the same day he issued an Ordinance No. 1 of 2005 Bk., by which it was, inter alia, provided that all Laws. Ordinances, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Notifications, Hidayats and Firmani-Shahi, having the force of law in Patiala State on the date of commencement of the Ordinance, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the territories of the said State and that with effect from that date all Laws in force in such Covenanting States immediately before that date shall be repealed. On 5-7-1949, the petitioner was placed in a higher grade which was 425-25700 and the orders in this respect were passed by the Rajpramukh of the PEPSU State. On 3-4-1952, one Ram Sarup, clerk of the Bank at Narnaul Branch, made a complaint to the authorities of the Bank alleging that the petitioner was interested in the promotion of a limited concern at Delhi and that he was using his official influence for that purpose which amounted to a misconduct on his part. Sardar Mohan Singh, Managing Director of the Bank, instituted some sort of inquiry into this complaint and reported on 1-5-1952, that the allegations were baseless. The Secretary of the Bank conveyed the result of the inquiry to the Manager, Narnaul Branch, through whom the complaint had been received. On 4-3-1953, the President of India issued an order that a situation had arisen in which the Government of PEPSU State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India, and in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 356 of the Constitution of India, the president of India assumed to himself all functions of the Government of the State, and all powers vested in him were made exercisable by the Rajpramukh of the State. The powers of the Legislature of the said State were declared to be exercisable by and under the authority of the Parliament. On 5-4-1953, another complaint was received by the Bank against Mr. Tandon and the same was addressed to the Adviser to the Rajpramukh. The matter was again inquired into by the Managing Director on 23-4-1953, and this complaint was also found to be false. On 9-5-1953, the Managing Director reported to the Government that the complaint was false and unfounded, but on 24-11-1953, the Adviser to the Rajpramukh passed orders that the petitioner be suspended. On 21-12-1953, Mr. R. N. Madhok, Deputy Secretary to the Government issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner, copy of which is annexure 'A'. On 18-1-1954, the petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet, and on 1-12-1954, he wrote to the Finance Secretary that all the authorities who had occasion to deal with his case had found that the charges against him were false and requested that no fresh inquiry be instituted into the said charges. On 6-12-1954, the petitioner received information for the Managing Director regarding the appointment of Brigadier Kushalpal Singh (one of the directors of the Bank) as the inquiry officer. Annexures RA, RB and RC make it clear that the appointment of the aforesaid inquiry officer was actually made under the orders of the Finance Minister. On 15-12-1954, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Finance Secretary protesting against the institution of a fresh inquiry against him. On 31-1-1955, he made a petition to the Inquiry Officer that the inquiry was illegal and void as the charges had already been inquired into by the Managing Director. On 5-2-195, however, the Inquiry Officer issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner and called upon him to stand the inquiry. On 222-1955, the petitioner was informed that his request for stopping the inquiry could not be acceded to. He then made frantic efforts to set that the inquiry was not proceeded with and filed various representations in that behalf on 163-1955, 28-5-1955, and 7-5-1955. The inquiry was in the meantime proceeding and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was being recorded. The petitioner remained present throughout the inquiry and participated in the same in various manners, but curiously enough he did not cross-examine any of the witnesses against him. The Managing Director of the Bank told him that his non-participation in the inquiry was at his own risk and advised him to participate. On 31-5-1955, he started actively participate. On 31-5-1955, he started actively participating in the inquiry, but by this time 29 out of 34 P. Ws, had already been examined. He cross-examined the rest of the five witnesses, and on 10-6-1955, he made an application to the Inquiry Officer explaining his reasons for his past non- participation but made no request at all with regard to the recalling of the prosecution witnesses who had not been cross-examined by him. On 4-12-1955, the Inquiry Officer closed the case and called upon the petitioner to file his written- statement. It appears that the petitioner did not make any request to the Inquiry Officer for the production of any witness in defence. On 15-12-1955, the petitioner filed his written statement, and on 2912-1955, the State filed its reply. On 2-1-1956, the petitioner filed a replication to the reply of the State and on 4-1-1956, the State once again filed another reply. On 4-1-1956, the petitioner filed his final reply. As the record of the inquiry did not show that the petitioner had been called upon to procedure his defence and had not chosen to produce any, the Inquiry Officer wrote a letter to the petitioner on 28-1-1956, asking him to furnish a certificate the he did not wish to produce any defence evidence. On 31-1-1956, the petitioner wrote to the Inquiry Officer in reply to his letter that under the PEPSU Service Regulations defence evidence was not summoned where there was no prima facie case. He said in this letter that he was not called upon to enter his defence, and from this fact he presumed that the inquiry Officer did not consider that any prmia facie case had been established against him. On 20-2-1956, the Inquiry Officer fixed a date for examination of the defence evidence and intimated the same to the petitioner. On 24-2-1956, the petitioner wrote to the inquiry officer reiterating his earlier stand and saying that he reserved his defence for a later stage. The date fixed for the examination of the defence was 1-3-1956, but the Inquiry Officer adjourned the same to 12-3-1956, in order to afford the petitioner another opportunity for the same. On 8-3-1956, the petitioner made a written representation to the Inquiry Officer expressing lack of confidence in him and reserving his right of leading defence evidence before the Government. On 12-3-1956, the Inquiry Officer passed orders adjourning the case to enable the petitioner to move the Government for the transfer of the case from him within 15 days from the said date. On 19-3-1956, the petitioner made a written request to the Finance Secretary for the transfer of the case, but on 10-4-1956, he was informed that the Inquiry Officer had been asked to report on the material with him. On 28-5-1956, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner were substantially proved. This report remained pending with the Government for some time and on 1-111956, the erstwhile PEPSU State integrated with the Punjab State. On 18-71957, the petitioner made a representation to the Finance Secretary, a copy of which is annexure 'K' in the present case. He sent another representation on 78-1957, a copy of which is annexure 'L' but received no reply to either of the two. On 29-8-1957, he filed Civil Writ No. 845 of 1957 in this Court seeking to have the orders of suspension and all subsequent proceedings quashed. This petition was admitted on 30-8-1957.

(3.) On 13-9-1957, a formal notice was issued to the petitioner by the Government asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, vide annexure 'M'. A copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was also sent to him along with this notice. On 12-10-1957, the petitioner submitted a reply and asked for inspection of some documents and also for examination of his defence evidence. On 12-10-1957, the Finance Secretary gave him an opportunity to inspect the documents at Patiala in the presence of the Managing Director. On 27-12-1957, the petitioner wrote to the Finance Secretary asking permission to lead defence evidence and to cross-examine important prosecution witnesses. It appears that the documents were inspected by the petitioner, but that the Government turned down the petitioner's request for production of the defence evidence and for recalling of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. On 22-9-1958, the writ petition filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court and at the hearing a request was made by the learned Advocate-General that the case be adjourned in order to enable the Government to arrive at a final decision with regard to the action to be taken against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge adjourned the case for two months and ordered that the record be sent back to the Government. In November or December, 1958 the case was sent by the Government to the Public Service Commission who made its report on 9-12-1958. In the meantime the case was placed again for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 1-12-1958, and was referred to a larger Bench. On 11-21-1958, while the previous civil writ petition was yet pending in the High Court the petitioner was dismissed from the Government service under the orders of the Governor, Punjab. These orders were conveyed to the petitioner on 17-12-1958, and on 22-12-1958, Civil Writ Petition No. 1225 of 1958 was filed by the petitioner. The order of the Governor which is contained in annexure 'O' was to the effect: