CHAMPRA ORAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application tinder Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was a permanent Lower Division Clerk of the Registration Depart- ment and was attached to the Sub Registry Office at Gumla, in the district of RancM. He was confirmed in the post on the 3rd of November, 1948. On the 16th of November, 1954, the petitioner took Re. I/- from respondents 4 and 5 when they had gone in the Registration Office for registration of certain document. On the 21st of November, 1954, the District Registrar (Deputy Commissioner) Ranchi, respondent No. 2, alone with the Sub-divisional Officer, Ranchi, respondent No. 3, had visited village Semra Bartoli, where respondents 4 and 5 resided, in connection with an inspection tour in Chainpore police station. It appears that respondents 4 and 5 reported to them there that the petitioner had taken Re. 1/-from them by way of illegal gratification. The Dis-trict Registrar forwarded these two persons the next day to the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla for recording their statements. Accordingly, on 22-11-1954, the Sub-divisional Officer took their statements without any notice to the petitioner, and, on the basis of their statements, the District Registrar, respondent No. 2, issued notice, which is annexure A to the petition, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within a week as to why he should not be dismissed for having realised Re. 1/- as illegal gratification from respondents 4 and 5. This notice was served on the petitioner on 23-11-1954, and he filed a written petition showing cause. It appears that the Additional Publicity Officer, Gumla, gave to the Sub Registrar, Gumla, some fifteen 'tokens', valued at Re. 1/- each, for sale to the registrant public in his office in aid of Goshala during the "Go Samvardhan Week", which was being celebrated at the instance of the Government of Bihar. In the show cause petition, the petitioner stated that the Sub Registrar did not like to sell the tokens personally and he entrusted the petitioner, who was the only assisting hand find the only clerk available to the Sub Registrar in his Office on 16-11-1954, with the job of selling the tokens. It was also stated that the Sub Registrar told him that it was a part of Government work and he should join and co-operate in raising such funds by persuading the people to purchase the tokens voluntarily. The petitioner further stated that, as most of the persons refused point blank to oblige the Sub Registrar in the matter of purchase of the tokens, he gave the petitioner instructions and indications to approach some of the persons and to talk to them privately and generally out of his office and out of his Sight also to persuade them to purchase the tokens, and, accordingly, the petitioner had to go out of the office-room to persuade the registrant public to purchase the tokens voluntarily. His case is that, in connection with the purchase of the said tokens, he realised Re. 1/- from respondents 4 and 5, not by way of any illegal gratification, but by sale of one of the tokens to them. On receiving this show-cause petition, the Subdivi-sional Officer called for a report from the Sub Registrar, who submitted his report on 30-11-1954 denying to have asked the petitioner to sell the tokens, and he stated that the tokens were sold by him to some of the registrants and that tokens, if ever sold under his instructions to the registrants, were sold before him. This report appeared to the Sub-divisional Officer to be vague, and he called for a further report from the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar then submitted his second report on 3-12-1954. In that report, again, he denied to have asked the petitioner to sell the tokens independently of him. The petitioner had no knowledge of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer calling for reports from the Sub Registrar or of the two reports submitted by him by way of explanation, and all these things were done behind the back of the petitioner. After receiving the findings from the Sub-divisional Officer, the District Registrar, respondent No. 2, passed an order which runs as follows :

(2.) Notice was issued by this Court on the respondents to show cause as to why the above order of discharge should not be quashed, and cause has-been shown by respondent No. 2, the District Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Ranchi by filing a counter-affidavit sworn by one Sachchidanand Sinha, an employee in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. In that counter-affidavit, it has been stated that at no stage of the proceedings did the petitioner ever ask for any opportunity either to be heard in person or to cross-examine the witnesses examined or for having such witnesses called for, as he might wish but it has not been denied that the statements of the above persons were taken behind the back of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity to cross-examine them.

(3.) In support of the petition, Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity was given to the- petitioner, as required by law, to test the correctness of the statements of respondents 4 and 5 and the Sub Registrar by cross-examining them, and, as such, the order of discharge is void and ought to be quashed.