RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajendra Prasad, the sole petitioner in this writ application, at the relevant time was working as the Dealing Assistant, Water Works of the Department of Dumka Municipality. According to his case, he was a permanent servant while, according to the case of the Municipality, he was a temporary servant, but that dispute is of no consequence in this case as it relates to a disciplinary action by way of punishment. The petitioner has challenged in this writ application the suspension order of the Chairman of the Dumka Municipality (Respondent no. 2) made on 6-4-1964, a copy of which is Annexure '1' to this writ application. Many charges were indicated in this order and a direction was given to frame charges for the embezzlement of Municipal money, fraud and wilful negligence of duty said to have been committed by the petitioner. An explanation was also asked from him. The impugned order was passed by Dr. A.N. Sen Gupta, the then Chairman of the Dumka Municipality The petitioner was also asked to abstain from attending the office and to make over charge of all papers, records etc. to one Shri Brahmadeo Narayan Singh, Second Clerk, Dumka Municipality. On his alleged failure to do so, a second notice was given to him which is dated 9th June, 1964, a copy of which is Annexure intimating to him that he committed disobedience of order as he did not care to hand over charge as directed in the previous order of the Chairman. It was intimated to him that a proceeding was being drawn up against him for his dismissal from service.

(2.) The petitioners case is that on receipt of the memo dated 6-4-1964 (Annexure 1), he wrote a letter dated 30 4-1964, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to this writ application, to the Chairman requesting him to furnish him with a true copy of the report of the Chairman, after Wo ks Committee, Dumka Municipality, on the basis of which Annexure 1 is said to have been issued. In Annexure 2, which is dated 9-6-1964. the Chairman had informed the petitioner that the detail of the said report had been given in his order dated 6-4-1964. However, a true copy of the report was again sent along with that letter. The petitioner filed his show cause explanation on 9-6-1964, a copy of which is Annexure '4' to this writ application. Some more commissions or commissions on the part of the petitioner were reported and another charge was intimated to him on 4-8-1964 (Vide Annexure 5). The petitioner filed his show cause in regard to that, a copy of which is Annexure 6 to this writ application.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioners case is that he did not receive any reply from the Chairman in connection with the explanation submitted by him for more than one year. Then he sent a reminder on 9-6-1955 (Vide Annexure 7) to the Chairman requesting him for an early disposal of the suspension matter. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the Chairman. Then he personally handed over a representation to the President. Board of Commissioners, Dumka Municipality, a copy of which is Annexure 8 to this writ application. Three Municipal Commissioners are said to have made an endorsement on this requesting the matter to be placed before the Board. The President, accordingly, asked the Chairman to do so, but he did not. The petitioner again handed over personally another representation, a copy of which is Annexure 9 to this writ application, with recommendation of nine Municipal Commissioners on the 19th July, 1966 but this representation was also ignored. The petitioners ease further is that he met the Chairman several times and every time he was assured that his case would be considered, but it was never considered. Finally, he served a notice under Sec. 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act) with a view to institute a suit against the Commissioners of Dumka Municipality. (A copy of this notice dated 30-8-1967 Is Annexure 10 to this writ application). The said notice appears to have been served on 31-8-1967 (A copy of the acknowledgement receipt is Annexure 11 to this writ application). After a lapse of about two years and a half even from the date of the notice under Sec. 377 of 'he Act, the petitioner filed this writ application on 29-1-1970 challenging his order of suspension made by the Chairman.