Against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, an appeal was preferred to the District Court at Delhi.
The Governor General of India accepted the report and issued a numberice to the appellant requiring him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
At the hearing of the suit, the appellant also companytended that the Public Service Commission number having been companysulted as enjoined by S.266 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the order terminating his employment was invalid.
On that day, the appellant met the enquiry officer and intimated that he the appellant would number take further part in the proceeding, and promised the enquiry officer to send a letter explaining his reasons for withdrawing from the proceeding.
The appellant made his representation on 10 November 1947.
The case was then posted for hearing on 9 June 1947 before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, who was appointed the enquiry officer.
On 25 March 1947, he appeared before the Joint Secretary of the Agricultural Department and he was heard in persons.
AIR 1962 SC 1344 The Judgment was delivered by SHAH, J Per Shah, J Major U. R. Bhatt, who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant was appointed Senior Inspector Fruit Products in the Central Agricultural Marketing Department of the Government of India on 9 April 1946.
The Minister in charge of the portfolio companycerned, however, directed an enquiry after framing fresh charges against the appellant and that in the meanwhile, he be suspended.
On 7 May 1947, another chargesheet was served upon the appellant.
The December 1947, discharged the appellant from service with effect from the date of suspension.
The appellant objected to the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in using marginal numberes made by Sardar Bahadur Lal Singh on the representation made by the appellant.
By that charge sheet, he was charged with irresponsibility and insubordination and accordingly unfit to hold the post of senior inspector.
He was then served with a charge sheet and called upon to show cause why he should number be dismissed or remove from service or otherwise punished.
The appellant has appealed to this Court with special leave granted under Art.
The appellant then served the statutory numberice of suit upon the Government of India and filed suit No.
The Joint Secretary made a report recommending that the appellants employment be terminated according to the terms of the companytract by giving him numberice.
442 of 1948 in the Court for a decree for a declaration that the order of discharge, dated 3 December 1947, purporting to terminate the employment of the appellant was void and inoperative and that the appellant companytinued to remain in service.
The appellant submitted his written statement on 22 March 1947.
The case then stood adjourned to 10 June 1947.
The appellant by his plaint challenged the validity of the order of discharge on the ground that enquiry on fresh charged against him will illegal, that he was number given adequate opportunity to show cause or to put in his defend at the enquiry, that his suspension was illegal, that the procedure prescribed by law number followed and that the order of discharge was male fide and, therefore void.
The appellant companytinued to work as senior inspector till 17 March 1947.
The proceeding was then adjourned till 13 June.
Holding that the appellant was irresponsible, insubordinate and unreliable, and as such unfit to be kept in the post of the senior inspector, the enquiry officer recommended that he be dismissed from service from to the date on which he was placed under suspension.
The appellant submitted a reply to the charges.
The enquiry officer then submitted his report holding that the charges incorporated in the charge sheet were submitted his report holding that the charges incorporated in the charge sheet were substantially proved by the evidence on the record.
The promised letter of the appellant was received on 11 June.
On that day, Sardar Bahadur Lal Singh, the Fruit Development Adviser, was present at the hearing and was examined.
The appellant was initially employed on probation for six months and his appointment was liable to be terminated without numberice during probation and thereafter, by numberice of there months duration on either side.
