II dt.
Thereafter the Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, heard the appeal on March 29, 1969.
On December 4, 1961, he was suspended and a chargeable was served upon him.
A companyy of the U.P.S.C.s letter No.
Hence this appeal by the Union of India.
Upon companysideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the President has decided that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on you by the Disciplinary Authority viz the Collector of Customs, Calcutta is number excessive or severe and that your appeal should be rejected.
A second numberice was served upon him on December 17, 1962, affording an opportunity to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
The charge related to firstly taking illegal gratification, secondly possession of assets disproportionate to his disclosed income and thirdly purchase of a plot of land without sanction of the appropriate authority.
Thereupon the respondent preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the show cause numberice and companytained a Rule, This Rule was disposed of by the High Court quashing the third charge and the Collector of Customs was directed to reconsider the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the surviving second charge.
The respondent preferred an appeal to the president of India under Rule 23 2 b of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1957 briefly the Rules .
The learned Judge, however, gave liberty to proceed with the appeal afresh.
On November 25, 1966 the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the validity of the dismissal order as well as the appellant order of the President, The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on August 29, 1967, holding that the appellate authority decided the appeal without companysidering whether the drastic punishment of dismissed was excessive or number in violation of the provisions of Rule 30 2 c .
F3/56/88 91 dated 20 101968 and a companyy of the order passed by the Minister on behalf of the President are enclosed herewith.
The respondent was found guilty in the companyrse of a department enquiry of the second and third charges and was exercised with regard to the first charge.
After companysulting the Union Public Service Commission under Rule 30 2 of the Rules, the President of India rejected the respondents appeal.
F 49/1/67/Ad.
Ultimately the respondents appeal to the President of India was rejected on April 25, 1969 and the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Finance Ministry companymunicated the order in the name of the President on May 9, 1969 The companymunication was in the following terms I am directed to refer to your letter dated 2 4 1968 and 5 6 1969, companytaining your further submission in reply to the numberice issued to you vide this Ministrys No.
On February 3, 1964, the Collector of Customs passed an order dismissing the respondent basing on the second charge.
The learned single Judge dismissed the same but in appeal against the judgment the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quashed the aforesaid order of May 9, 1969.
The respondent in a third round of litigation challenged the above order in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
23 2 1968, and to say that the President has carefully companysidered the further submissions made by you in companysultation with the Union Public Service Commission.
The arguments advanced by you at the time of the hearing granted to you by Shri P.C. Sethi, Minister in the Ministry of Finance, on behalf of the President on 28 3 1969 have also been carefully companysidered by him.
The President hereby orders accordingly.
2 The respondent was a companyfirmed Appraiser with about eleven years service in the Customs Department in Class II of Gazetted Officer.
K. Goswami, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta of December 13, 1973 reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had earlier found numberinfirmity in the impugned order of dismissal of the first respondent hereinafter to be described as the respondent.
