AMAR NATH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of three Writ Petitions, Civil Writ No. 776 of 1968, Amar Nath v. The Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur and others, Civil Writ No. 1120 of 1968, Vijay Kumar v. Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur, and three others and Civil Writ No. 1392 of 1968, Som Nath v. Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur and three others, as they have been directed against the same order.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioners were in the service of the Amritsar Municipal Committee and on 13th July, 1966 were working on the Octroi Post at the Cettle Fair Road Octroi Barrier, Amritsar. A truck No. PNW 2755 loaded with desi mangoes passed on that road and entered municipal limits which was stopped by the octroi staff and octroi for 48 quintals of mangoes amounting to Rs. 16-80 was charged from the owner of the truck and a receipt was issued. The said truck was intercepted on the same day by Shri Chaman Lal, Octroi Superintendent, accompanied by Shri Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Octroi, Superintendent and Shri Chuni Lal. Octroi Inspector, near Ram Talai which was at a short distance from the Cattle Fair Road Octroi Barrier where the petitioners were posted. The Octroi Superintendent suspected that the amount of octroi charged was less and consequently he brought back the truck to the barrier where it was re-weighed. The other members of the party also accompanied the truck. At the barrier the truck was reweighed and it was found that octroi should have been charged on a weight on 62.75 quintals and not 48 quintals. The octroi on 62.74 quintals amounted to Rs. 21.82 while the petitioners had charged only Rs. 16.80 and thus caused loss to the Municipal Committee. Another charge against the petitioners was that Kartar Chand, the owner of the mangoes, had given Rs. 20/- in payment of the octroi amount. He was given a receipt for Rs. 16.80 and the balance amount was pocketed by the petitioners. A conspiracy was alleged between the petitioners and the Octroi Peons. The petitioners were suspended from service and a departmental enquiry was ordered against them.

(3.) In the meanwhile the Municipal Committee was superseded under Section 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, was appointed an Administrator. Shri V.P. Dubey, P.C.S., respondent 4, was appointed the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee. On 3rd September, 1966, Shri V.P. Dubey charge-sheeted the petitioners and a copy of the charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations is Annexure 'A' to each of the writ petitions. Shri Dubey then held the departmental enquiry and made a report on 11th January, 1967. He held the petitioners guilty of the charges framed against them and recommended that Amar Nath and Som Nath should be dismissed from municipal service after serving the necessary show-cause notice and Vijay Kumar should be given some punishment short of dismissal. This report was considered by the Administrator of the Municipality on 16th January, 1967 and he ordered the issue of show-cause notice against dismissal to all the petitioners. The notice was actually issued on 21st January, 1967 by Shri V.P. Dubey. To the show-cause notice the petitioners sent a reply on 27th January, 1967. The Administrator then passed the order on 7th April, 1967 dismissing all the petitioners from the service. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who dismissed the appeals as not maintainable by order dated 12th December, 1967. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition in this Court.