MAHADEV PRASAD ROY Vs. S N CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner Mahadev Prasad Roy has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of respondent No. 1, Mr. S.N. Chatterjee, Deputy Superintendent of the Bihar Government Press, dated 16-9-1953, dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a lino-operator in the Government Printing Press, Gul-zarbagh, on 16-7-1928. THE appointment was made by the Superintendent of the Government Printing Press. THE petitioner was confirmed in service in 1931. He was promoted to be a lino-foreman in 1942. On 2-10-1951 the Deputy superintendent started proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner committed theft of lino-metal. A report was made to the police by one Lachminarain Lal, an employee of the Press, based upon the same facts. THE police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 381, Penal Code. THE case was tried before Mr. S.P. Varma, Judicial Magistrate. THE defence of the petitioner was that the metal was planted upon him and the allegation of theft was false. By his judgment dated 26-3-1952 the Magistrate acquitted the petitioner of the charge. THEreafter the petitioner wrote to the Deputy Superintendent stating that he had been acquitted of the charge and that he should be reinstated in service. On 10-7-1952 the Deputy Superintendent initiated a second proceeding against the petitioner based upon the same facts. THE petitioner submitted explanation but the Deputy Superintendent considered that the charge of theft was proved against the petitioner and made an order dismissing him from service. THE case of the petitioner is that the Deputy Superintendent had no jurisdiction to start the proceeding or to dismiss the petitioner from service. THE contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there was a violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution which requires that no civil servant shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he has been appointed. It is also objected on behalf of the petitioner that there has been a violation of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution which requires that the State Public Service Commission should be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of the State in a civil capacity.

(3.) MY view is therefore that the petitioner could be dismissed only by the Superintendent of the Government Press or by any higher authority and that the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Superintendent is invalid and inoperative. The Government order delegating the power of appointment and dismissal to the Deputy Superintendent was made on 20-6-1952. That order would be valid with respect to persons appointed by the Deputy Superintendent after that date but that order cannot be valid so far as the petitioner is concerned. The reason is that the petitioner was appointed in 1928 by the Superintendent and the petitioner's case would be protected under Article 311 of the Constitution; in other words, the Government order dated 20-6-1952 would be repugnant to Article 311 so far as the petitioner's case is concerned and to that extent the Government order would be invalid.