DURGA DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner fin this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 20th November, 1968, of his removal from service, passed by the Settlement Officer, Mandi District, Himachal Pradesh, as also the order passed by the Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh dated 4 -12 -1970, who in appeal maintained the said order. The facts of the case, as are relevant to this writ petition, may be stated.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was appointed as a Patwari, in the Revenue Department, in Mandi district, by the Settlement Officer during the year 1961, and >vas working as such till the time he was removed from service. The petitioner received an order from respondent No. 2 (Settlement Officer, Mandi) dated 5th October, 1966, that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him and that he was placed under suspension. On the same day, charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner, by the said respondent, together with the article of charges and the same were received by the petitioner, on 24th October, 1966. The petitioner made a demand for the supply of certain documents to him. He demoded the copy of the application sent by the public on which the charges had been framed, and the enquiry held on 7 -4 -1966. The petitioner further stated that unless the aforesaid copies were supplied to him it would not be possible for him to file a reply. A copy of the letter sent by the petitioner is marked as Annexure D The Naib Tehsildar, (Settlement) concerned, by a letter dated 6 -2 -1967 informed the petitioner that the documents demanded by the petitioner did not relate to the charges against the petitioner and as such the copies could not be supplied to him. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure E\ It is further stated by the petitioner that by a letter dated 30 -4 -1967 the charge No. 7, with regard to absence from duty was dropped against him. Shri Nitya Gautam, Settlement Tehsildar, Karsog, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by respondent No 2, by a letter dated 12 -4 -1967. The petitioner, however, objected to his appointment as an Enquiry Officer and on that Shri Sher Singh, Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, Mandi, was appointed as such, by a letter dated 6 -5 -1967. Shri Amar Singh Rathor, Ahlmad, was appointed as presenting officer by an order dated 5 -6 -1967 who was also replaced by Shri Balak Ram, Reader. It is stated by the petitioner that he made several verbal requests and written demands for the supply of documents to him, so as to enable him to file a reply. Respondent No. 2, however, by a letter dated 15 -7 -1967 (Annexure M) informed the petitioner that he could examine the original mutation, in the office of the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Neri Circle. At the same time, the petitioner was informed that some other documents could not be supplied to him as they were not relevant to the enquiry. On further representation having been made by the petitioner for the supply of the copies of documents to him he was informed by respondent Na 2 under a letter dated 23 -10 -1967 (Annexure Q) that it was possible to give the copies of certain documents to him if he had applied for the same, in time. The petitioner was, however, informed that taking into consideration his necessity, he could inspect the relevant files containing the documents which were kept by an official of the department and that the inspection could be made on or before 4 -11 -1967. It is, however, contended by the petitioner that he was not allowed the inspection. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 served a show cause notice on him proposing the penalty of dismissal from service. A copy of the same is marked as Annexure T A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure LT) was also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was ultimately removed from service by respondent No. 2, under the order contained in Annexure JB The petitioner has stated that he had replied to the show cause notice on 15 -7 -1968. A copy of this reply is Annexure W The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal to the Commissioner Revenue (Respondent No. 3), but the same was rejected on 4 -12 -1970 (Copy marked Annexure Z). 3 In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been asserted that the documents relating to the charges were sent to the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Churag Circle to be supplied to the petitioner and the Naib Tehsiidar handed over the same to the petitioner, on 15 -1 -1967 It is further submitted that the petitioner was directed to submit the statement of defence within 15 days from the receipt ot these papers. It is averred that the copies of the statements dated 7 -4 -1966 were not supplied to the petitioner as these statements were recorded by a Kanungo and the preliminary enquiry made by him had been set aside. It is also stated that these statements were not relevant for the regular enquiry. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 by a letter (Annexure MVT) permitted the petitioner to inspect certain documents and pointed out that other documents would not be relevant as the charge of absence from duty had been dropped. It is averred on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry and the enquiry Officer had heard the arguments on 25 -1 -1968. It has been repeated by the respondents that the copies of the documents by which the charges were to be proved were supplied to the petitioner through the Settlement Naib Tehstidar, Churag Circle, and the Naib Tehsildar had handed over the same to the petitioner on 15 -1 -1967. It is also stated that the written statement to the charge sheet as filed by the petitioner had been returned to him by the Naib Tehsildar, to make any changes therein, if he so desired. A copy of the said letter is filed as Annexure R -4 in which the Naib Tehsildar had informed the respondent no. 2 that copies of the documents were handed over to the petitioner and that he could also make necessary changes in his reply, if he so desired. A copy of the letter sent by respondent No. 2 the Settlement Naib Tehsildar dated 21 -12 -19c6 (Annexure R -2) has been also filed by the respondents. With this letter copies of the statements of 9 of the witnesses as also certain other documents had been sent to be supplied to the petitioner. So far as the copies of the statements dated 7 -4 -1966 were concerned, the same, according to respondent No. 2, could not be supplied, as the same were not relevant to the charges, against the petitioner. It is also averred on behalf of the respondents that besides the copies of the statements of 9 witnesses, the copies of the statements of 4 more witnesses were also supplied to the petitioner, as desired by him. Ultimately it is contended that the order inflicting ths penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, is proper and valid.

(4.) It is desirable to reproduce the charges which were framed against the petitioner, as contained in Annexure C\ The same are as under : - - 1, Settlement Officer, District Mandi, Sunder Nagar, charge you Durga Dass s/o Narain Singh, Patwari to the following effect": - (1) That you were posted in Nihri Circle and your quarter was in the house of Jindu Ram, resident of Kot. Some days later Smt. Dassi niece of Jindu Ram came to his house as guest, during this period you developed illicit relations with Smt. Dassi. On this Shri Jalam who was the husband complained on the basis of which you were transferred to from Niri Circle to Churag Circle by this office. Being a married Government servant it does not behave you to have such relations with the wives of other persons during the course of your service. (2) In spite of your transfer you did not shift your quarter and from 2 to 3 kilometers you used to come, the sole purpose of which was to have illicit relations with Smt. Dassi. (3) On account of illicit relations with Dassi, you harassed threatened Shri Jindu Ram with the help of Dassi and her sister Bileswaru which has been proved by the neighbored of that village, being a Government servant it is against Conduct Rules. (4) When you were transferred to Garbi Darehat Circle Smt. Dassi was with you at that place, being Government servant you should not have kept the wife of other by taking her. (5) Having good relations with Smt. Dassi and her sister you got the land measuring 5 bighas 14 bis was transferred as sale in the name of your father which you should not have purchased without prior permission in the name of your relative. (6) From the enquiry it has been found that at that time attestation of mutation you appeared on behalf of Shri Narain Singh bendee before the attesting officer from which it appears that you have not purchased the land in the name of your father but you have purchased it for yourself. From the statement of Smt. Bileswaru dated 26th August, 1966 it appears that you never paid any price of the land and you compelled them to make a statement at the time of attestation of mutation from , it appears that you deceived them. (7) That the Field Kanungo concerned at the time of verification of Mohal Manola directed you to correct the mistakes but you did not care for that and most of the time you spent in Takroha, etc. whereas subsequently this was even found in correct. On 21st May, 1966 you were found absent from your duty for that the Naib Tehsildar called your explanation but you never replied It does not behave for you as a Government servant for the acts."