BISHAN DASS DOGRA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice Mian Jalal -ud -Din J) dated 28 -4 -1975, in Writ Petition No. 170 of 1974, whereby the learned Single Judge has held the order imposing punishment on the petitioner to be valid and had as a result thereof dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) A birds eye view of the facts may first be noticed. The petitioner, serving in the Traffic Department, at the relevant time as an A.S.I, was charge -sheeted by the Single -member, Anti Corruption Commission, (Non -Gazetted Govt: Servants), hereinafter referred to as the Commission, on 12 -9 -1972 on the allegations that he had accepted illegal gratification from Ram Singh driver and Trilok Singh Cleaner of Petrol Tanker JKN 4671. The Commission found the officer to be guilty and recommended to the Government to punish him for the same. On the recommendation made by the Commission, the petitioner was punished by the Government vide Order No. 23 of 1974 dated 29 -8 -1974. The petitioner was fined Rs. 30/ - and it was further ordered by the Government that two annual increments of the petitioner for a period of three years be stopped having effect of postponing the future increments and depriving him the chances of promotion to a higher grade for a period of three years.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, the petitioner assailed the order of the Government mainly on the ground that the Commission had shown a bias against the petitioner and as such the order based on such a biased report was vitiated. Reference was invited to the remarks made by the Commission in his report to the effect "This is unfortunate for the accused that I have worked as a Mobile Magistrate or otherwise the decision of the instant case would have been different." From this remark, the learned counsel had contended before the learned Single Judge, it was reasonable to conclude that the Commission was biased and that but for the personal knowledge of the Commission, there was no other material justifying his conclusion of guilt against the petitioner and that since bias had entered the findings of the Commission, that report was bad and the action taken on the basis of the said report was vitiated. The other grounds for impeaching the order punishing the petitioner which were taken before the learned Single Judge do not concern us in the present appeal as the learned counsel for the appellant has confined himself to the ground based on the bias of the Commission only before us and has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge negativing the plea on the ground firstly that "this personal experience is not the basis of the Commissions judgment" and secondly that "there is positive evidence of the Driver and Cleaner which has been believed by the Commission" as errneous.