BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Is a writ petition by Balbir Singh under Article 228 of the Constitution challenging his order of dismissal dated 28 October 1964, Ex. 6.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as helper under the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Mechanical Division 1, Hanumangarh. It is not disputed before us that as such he was a workcharged employee of the Irrigation Department. According to the petitioner, Baldeo Singh and Heeralal, overseers, were his immediate superiors. On 9 October 1964, the petitioner was found to have carried a dibba or a container from the workshop where he used to work. This dibba contained an electric meter and a piece of rexine cloth. The case of the petitioner was and is that the gate-keepers wanted to check the dibba at the exit gate whereupon Heeralal who was accompanying the petitioner told him that it belonged to him Heeralal and therefore, the petitioner was allowed to take it away. The petitioner's further case is that when he had carried the dibba outside the workshop Heeralal again met him and told him to leave the same with Harisharan and Co. While he was so carrying it, one Lakhmir Singh, an electric foreman, met him and asked him what was contained in the dibba. The petitioner told Lakhmir Singh that Heeralal had given it to him and so he was taking it to Harishavan and Co. , as desired by Heeralal. It appears that Baldeo singh reported the matter to the Assistant Engineer whereupon the latter called the petitioner when he told the whole story. The Assistant Engineer in Ms turn appears to have reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer who also sent for the petitioner when the latter narrated to him the same story. The petitioner's grievance is that thereafter an order dated 6 November 1964, under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Mechanical Division 1, had been served on him on 9 November 1964, informing him that he had been dismissed from service with effect from 27 October 1964 afternoon. It was mentioned in this order that the order of dismissal was passed by the Superintending Engineer as a result of an inquiry conducted by him regarding the alleged misappropriation of an electric meter and some rexine cloth from the workshop.

(3.) THE petitioner has attacked the order of dismissal on the following main grounds: