BANKIM CHANDRA MUKHERJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, with a prayer that this Court should direct the opposite party to revoke the order dismissing the petitioner on 31-10-1949, based on the report of the Commissioner, and to further direct that the petitioner be treated as continuing as a member of the Bihar Civil Service.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, Sri Bankim Chandra Mukherji, is that he joined the service of the Government of Bihar and Orissa in 1922 as a Sub Deputy Collector and that in 1930 he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Collector on account of his efficiency; that in 1932," the petitioner was specially appointed to the post of inspector of Mica Accounts under the Bihar and Orrissa Mica Act of 1930, and was stationed at Kodarma in the district of Hazaribagh; that for his good work, the Government awarded him a sanad and also conferred the title of Rai Saheb on him; that the petitioner had the misfortune of coming in conflict with Sri K. B. Sahay, an influential Congress leader in the district of Hazaribagh, concerning the administration of the Mica Act and also with regard to the prosecution of a wealthy mica dealer; it is alleged that the "Searchlight" had severely criticised the petitioner's administration under the Act and that the paper had done so at the instance of Sri K. B. Sahay; that ultimately the allegations made by the 'Searchlight' were withdrawn and the paper apologised to the petitioner; it is further alleged that when the Congress took office for the first time in 1937, the petitioner was removed from the post of the Inspector of Mica Accounts and was transferred to Gaya, though every effort was made for the postponement of the transfer through the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner which recommendation was rejected by the Government; that in 1939, the petitioner was appointed Subdivisional Officer at Gaya, and whilst he was there, war broke out, and in 1940, the petitioner's services were requisitioned by the Government of India for employment as Additional Mica Inspector under the Government of India in order to control the export of mica; that in July 1943, the petitioner was posted to Araria as Subdivisional Officer and was there as such till September, 1946; that on account of the petitioner's good record, he was promoted to the rank of Additional District Magistrate in 1946; that whilst the petitioner was at Araria as Subdivisional Officer, he had to take stern measures for checking blackmarketing and profiteering and remedying the affairs of three public institutions, namely, the Araria High English School, the Co-operative Bank and the Girls' School; that due to the stern measures, the petitioner incurred bitter hostility of a group of businessmen and some lawyers; that some of these businessmen combined against the petitioner to humiliate and punish him for the steps which he had taken against them; that some of these businessmen became principal witnesses against the petitioner in the enquiry against the petitioner that was held by the Commissioner subsequently; that in the middle of 1945, in consequence of the conspiracy hatched against the petitioner petitions were filed before the Provincial Government making allegations against the petitioner's honesty and integrity; that under the orders of the Government, the District Magistrate was directed to hold an enquiry into the allegations, and these allegations were found to be false, and the District Magistrate was directed to take action against the mischief mongers; that after the Congress had come into office in April, 1946, the petitioner's enemies approached the Government and renewed their allegations against the petitioner, and the petitioner was again subjected to the same kind of unfair treatment as in 1937 and 1938; that the Congress Government in spite of the result of the enquiry held during the term of the previous Government took no action against the mischief-mongers, and that on the basis of the allegations made by the enemies of the petitioner with the backing of the C. I. D. officer, Mr. K. N. Mishra, an enquiry was further held against the petitioner, and that also failed and no action was taken against the petitioner; that the Anti-Corruption Department secured the Government's permission to resume the enquiry and submitted a report to the Government against the petitioner towards the end of 1947 on the basis of materials gathered by Rameshwar Singh, who was then an officiating D. S. P. and who was himself tried on a charge of bribery shortly before his recruitment to the Anti-Corruption Department; that on receipt of the report of the Anti-Corruption Department, the Government suspended the petitioner in February, 1948, without calling for any explanation from him and resolved to hold an enquiry under the Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850 ; that on the petitioner having pointed out the irregularity and impropriety of these orders to the Chief Secretary, the Chief Minister recalled the orders suspending the petitioner and directed that instead of the proposed enquiry the petitioner should be called upon to meet the allegations etc.; it is alleged that whilst the petitioner awaited the receipt of a copy of the report of the Anti-Corruption Department for submitting his explanation, the petitioner received an order from the Government to the effect that the enquiry under the Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850, as previously contemplated would be held at Patna before Sri H. P. Sinha, appointed as Commissioner; that the enquiry was held by Sri H. P. Sinha who reported to the Government against the petitioner; that the recommendations of the Commissioner were accepted by the Government and the petitioner was dismissed by the order of Government on 31-10-1849; that the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Governor of Bihar in May, 1950, through the Government under Section 241, Government of India Act, 1935, read with Article 313, of the Constitution of India, but in spite of several reminders having been sent to the authorities concerned, the. result of the appeal was never conveyed to the petitioner; that under the letter dated 15-4-1953, from the Secretary to the Governor of Bihar, the petitioner had been advised that the matter had been forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar for disposal to whom any further correspondence on the subject should be addressed.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case further that the enquiry held by the Commissioner was attended with serious illegalities and irregularities regarding the procedure followed as also with regard to the substantive rights of the petitioner; that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the proof of documents had not been complied with; that having called for documents at the cost of the petitioner, the learned Commissioner denied opportunities to the petitioner to prove such documents in the manner prescribed by the Evidence Act arid refused to consider them in exculpation of the charges against the petitioner, although such documents were very relevant for the purpose of the defence of the petitioner; that the Commissioner had not given adequate opportunities to the petitioner to defend himself, inasmuch as the Commissioner refused to call for certain" material documents in support of the defence of the petitioner; that so far as the findings of the Commissioner regarding charges III, V(a) and (c) were concerned, they were not based on evidence, inasmuch as the findings were based on the tainted and uncorroborated testimony of only one witness; that the commissioner had, suggested to the petitioner, though an accused, that he should be examined on oath, and he was, therefore, examined on oath and thereafter he had to withstand the test of cross-examination by the prosecution in a manner unknown to the system of Indian Jurisprudence and also against the provisions of the Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850; that the Commissioner was prejudicial to the petitioner as would appear from his report; that some of the findings of the Commissioner were based on unproved documents which were inadmissible in law and some had no bearing on the charge V(b); that the findings of the Commissioner under charges V(b) and V(c) are vitiated as they are based on hearsay evidence, that the findings of the Commissioner under charges Kb) and (c) as well as under charges V(a), V(b) and V(c) cannot be sustained as they are based on 'ex parte' evidence given by the prosecution ignoring the evidence led in defence by the petitioner and the admission of some of the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination; that the findings of the Commissioner with respect to charges I(a) to I(h), II(a), II(b), III, V as also V(b) are based on no evidence, oral or documentary; that the report made by the Commissioner, ignoring the material facts and circumstances and credence being placed on illegal, unreliable and tainted prosecution evidence, is vitiated by reason of non-consideration of material evidence apparent on the face of the record; that the opposite party failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and also did not apply their judicial mind before accepting the report and making the order complained of; that the petitioner preferred an appeal which has not been disposed of and that having regard to the reply received from the Secretary to the Governor, there is no chance of the appeal being disposed of by the appellate authority.