PUNAM CHAND Vs. COLLECTOR AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Collector, Ajmer, dated 11-4-1966,1 whereby he ordered the appellant, Shri Punamchand to be reduced in his present time scale by two stages on the ground that while working as an L. D. C. in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri, he showed negligence and indifference and in certain cases exceeded his authority in issuing permits and delivering them to the persons who were not entitled to receive them. The Collector held that in doing so, Shri Punamchand had not acted in good faith and that his malafide intention stood clearly established.

(2.) TWO procedural objections have been raised against the order of the Collector. Firstly, it is contented that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is stated that before the amendment of 6-10-63, it was enough for the disciplinary authority to give a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, but after the amendment, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to give the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges before a penalty can be imposed on him. It is argued that although in the notice issued under sec. 311 (2) on 16-12-1965, the appellant was allowed to represent his case personally, if he so liked, he was not given this opportunity although he had sought the same through his reply dated 15-1-1966. It is contended that this lapse vitiates the enquiry.