The appellant submitted an explanation and an enquiry was held by A. P. Mathur in due companyrse.
In August, 1951, he was posted as and Deputy Chief Controller of imports, Calcutta, and companytinued to work in that post till September, 1952.
Yours faithfully, Sd.
the 15th February, 1953, or up to the date from which I am permitted to retire whichever may be earlier .
The appellant then went on leave and on February 25, 1953, he wrote to Government to say that he was companytemplating to join the service of Messrs. Albert David Co. Ltd., Calcutta, and for that purpose he was accepting a companyrse of training in that Company for two months.
25 D of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated April 9, 1956, of the said High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Writ No.
In that application the appellant stated Normally I am due to retire in April 1956 but I find it difficult to reconcile myself to the new companyditions of service under which I am number placed to work.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated December 3, 1956, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
He then took four months leave on average pay and on the expiry of his leave on January 24, 1953, he was transferred as Section officer in the Development Wing of the Ministry of Commerce.
A. P. Mathur, Joint Chief Controller of Imports, was asked to hold an enquiry against the appellant on the charge mentioned above.
S. Bhoothalingam, Joint Secretary to the Government of India.
The Enquiring Officer submitted his report on September 12, 1953, in which he found that the appellant had, companytrary to the rules governing the companyditions of his service, accepted private employment without previous sanction of Government during the period when he was still in Government service.
311 2 of the Constitution.
On February 14, 1953, the appellant amended his leave application and said that he had been informed by the I Administrative Branch of the Development Wing that the question of permission to retire was under companysideration, because of some difficulty with regard to the inclusion in the service of the appellant the period during which he held the, post of Assistant Secretary, Frontier Corps therefore be said that he might be granted leave on full average pay for four months with effect from February 15, 1953, if the decision to give him permission to retire was likely to be postponed beyond May 1, 1953.
He amended his leave application by making the following prayer Leave may be sanctioned for four months from.
8 D of 1955.
As the whole of the argument in this case centres round this show cause numberice, it is necessary to set it out in full Sir, I am directed to say that the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into certain charges framed against you has submitted his report a companyy of the report is enclosed for your information.
Any representation which you may make in that companynection will be companysidered by him before taking the proposed action.
Under the circumstances, I pray that I may be permitted to retire from the 1st May, 1953.
Before he takes that action, he desires to give you an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken.
In April, 1953, the appellant accepted service under Messrs. Albert David Co. Ltd., and he wrote to Government to that effect on April 6, 1953.
As these representations bore numberfruit, he applied for leave preparatory to retirement on February 6, 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.
On March 10, 1953, the appellant was informed that he companyld number be allowed to retire at that stage, but the Ministry had agreed to grant him leave from February 16, 19 3, to April 30, 1953.
On June 16, 1953, the appellant was charged with hav ing violated r. 15 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules and Fundamental Rule 11.
After partition, the appellant opted for service in India and was posted to an office under the Ministry of Commerce in the Government of India in October, 1947.
The appellant stated that the post which be held then was a post in the Central Service, Class 11.
I find that I would number be wasting only myself but I would also number be doing full justice to the interest of my Government and companyntry in my present environment.
288 of 1958.
The short facts are these.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, B. Sen and T. Sen, for the respondent 1958.
C. Chatterjee and R. S. Narula, for the appellant.
311 2 of the Constitution.
On April 14, 1954, the appellant was asked to show cause in accordance with the provisions of Art.
The appellant thought that the order amounted to a reduction of his rank and lie made certain representations.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This is an appeal by special leave and the only question for decision is if the order of the President dated October 1, 1954, removing the appellant from service with effect from that date is invalid, as claimed by the appellant, by reason of a companytravention of the provisions of Art.
Such representation, if any, should be made, in writing, and submitted so as to reach the undersigned number later than 14 days from the receipt of this letter by you.
The appellant stated that he joined permanent Government service on April 4, 1924.
December 12.
In 1947, before partition, he was employed as Assistant Secretary, Frontier Corps of Militia and Scouts in the then North Western Frontier Province, under the administrative companytrol of the External Affairs Department of the Government of India.
dismissal, removal or reduction should be enforced on you.
The appellant then showed cause and on October 1, 1954, the President passed an order in which it was stated that after taking into companysideration the report of the Enquiring Officer and in companysultation with the Public Service Commission, the President found that the charge had been proved against the appellant and the appellant was accordingly removed from service with effect from that date.
The appellant then moved the Punjab High Court by a petition under Art.
In December, 1949, he was transferred to the office of the Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi, to clear off certain arrears of work.
