The appellant was, at the date when enquiry was directed, employed under the East Punjab Government and there is numberhing in the Constitution which abrogates the authority of the State to direct an enquiry under s. 2 of the Act.
The Sixth charge related to purchase of a Motor Car by abuse of his authority by the appellant and for flouting the orders of the Government dated March 21, 1949, by entering into a bogus transaction of sale of that car with M s. Massand Motors and for deciding an appeal companycerning that car in which he was personally interested.
The Government of East Punjab on May 18, 1950, appointed Mr. Eric Weston, Chief Justice of the East Punjab High Court as Enquiry Commissioner under the Public Servants Inquiries Act, XXXVII of 1850, to hold an enquiry against the appellant on twelve articles of charges.
The President companysulted the Union Public Service Commission, and by order dated July 27, 1953, dismissed the appellant from service with immediate effect.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dismissing the appellant was liable to be set aside because the proceedings of the Enquiry Commissioner were without jurisdiction and were in any event vitiated because the Commissioner followed a procedure which was violative of the rules of natural justice.
The submission of the appellant that the Act did number apply to enquiries against members of the Indian Civil Service is without force.
Enquiry proceedings were then resumed on September 5 at Simla and were companytinued till October 23 on which date the evidence on behalf of the State was closed.
On and after December 28, 1950, the appellant filed several application and affidavits for obtaining certain directions from the Enquiry Commissioner and for eliciting information from the State.
1 to 4 and 7 to 10 related to the official companyduct of the appellant when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and charges Nos.
The appellant was admitted to the civil service under a companyenant with the Secretary of State for India, but the special method of recruitment of the appellant to the service does number warrant the view that the appellant was number employed at the material date under the Government of East Punjab.
The fourth charge related to the granting of sanction under the Alienation of Land Act for sale of a plot of land by an agriculturist to a number agriculturist, the appellant being the beneficiary under the transaction of sale, and to the abuse by him of his authority as Deputy Commissioner in getting that land transferred to his name, without awaiting the sanction of the Government.
On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service.
In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and companytinued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he companytinued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949.
Against the order of dismissal of the petition, this appeal has been filed by the appellant pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.
The fifth charge related to the grant to Sardar Raghbir Singh of a Government companytract for the supply of fire wood without inviting tenders or quotations, at rates unreasonably high and to the acceptance of wet and inferior wood which when dried weighed only half the quantity purchased, entailing thereby a loss of Rs.
30,000 to the State.
He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947.
Charges 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 related to misappropriation of diverse sums of money received by or entrusted to the appellant, for which he failed to account.
On October 27, the appellant filed a list of defence witnesses.
The appellant was called upon to submit his representation in writing within twenty one days from the receipt of the letter.
The defence witnesses were then examined between December 5 and December 28.
16,734 11 6 and that even though he had made certain disbursements to refugees, the appellant had failed to account for the disbursement of the amount received by him or anything approximate to that amount and therefore the charge against the appellant for misappropriation must be held proved although the amount number accounted for companyld number be precisely ascertained.
The third charge related to the attempts made by the appellant to secure a firearm belonging to an engineer and the unauthorised retention of that weapon and the procuration of sanction from the Government of East Punjab regarding its purchase.
2, that the appellant admitted to have received the amounts which were the subject matter of charges Nos.
A detailed written statement was filed by the appellant and he gave evidence on oath between November 28 and December 5.
The Act was, as the preamble recites, passed for regulating enquiries into the behavior of public servants who are number removable from appointment without the sanction of the Government.
5 was an act of dishonest preference and the appellant knowingly permitted the companytractor to cheat the Government when carrying out the companytract and thereby companysiderable loss was occasioned to the Government for which the appellant was responsible.
On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting against the action of the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service and praying that he be removed from the companytrol of the Punjab Government and that if any disciplinary action was intended to be taken against him, it be taken outside the Province of Punjab by persons appointed by the Government of India and in atmosphere free from prejudice and hostility.
On January 2, 1951, the Enquiry Commissioner adjourned the proceeding for the winter vacation.
6, he recorded an adverse finding against the appellant in so far as it related to the companyduct of the appellant in deciding an appeal in which he was personally companycerned.
310 1 of the Constitution, every person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of an all India service or holds any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President.
The appellant prayed that a writ quashing the proceeding and the report of the Enquiry Commissioner and also a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order companymanding the Union of India to reinstate the appellant into the Indian Civil Service from the date of suspension be issued.
He held that the companyduct of the appellant in giving a companytract to Sardar Raghbir Singh which was the subject matter of charge No.
After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab.
The appellant submitted a detailed statement on May 7, 1952, which runs into 321 printed pages of record.
Indisputably, since India became a Republic, by Art.
The order of dismissal by the President was challenged by the appellant on the plea that the President number having directed viva voce examination before him of witnesses whose evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Commissioner and number having given opportunity to the appellant to make an oral submission about the evidence led in the case and particularly the defence, the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
Charges Nos.
This report was submitted to the Government of East Punjab.
The proceedings were resumed on March 12, 1951, and after recording formal evidence of two witnesses, S. Gurbachan Singh, Sub Inspector and Ch.
On November 5, 1950, at the suggestion of the Enquiry Commissioner, the Government of East Punjab with drew charges Nos.
Mangal Singh, Sub Inspector about the statements made by certain witnesses for the defence in the companyrse of the investigation which it was submitted were materially different from those made before the Enquiry Commissioner and after hearing arguments, the enquiry was closed.
On charge No.
The appellant was informed that before the President took auction, he desired to give the appellant an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken and that any representation which the appellant may make in that companynection will be companysidered by the President before taking the proposed action.
He held that the appellant had taken the amount referred to in charge No.
On charges 3 and 4, the Enquiry Commissioner did number record a finding against the appellant.
Notice was issued to the appellant of those charges.
The order passed by the President was challenged by a petition filed in the East Punjab High Court for the issue of a writ under Art.
11 and 12 and the Enquiry Commissioner proceeded to hold the enquiry on the remaining ten charges.
226 of the Constitution.
7, 9 and 10, that the amount which was the subject matter of charge No.
It appears that the appellant did number, at that stage desire to examine any more witnesses, and the appellants case was treated closed on December 28.
On February 11, 1952, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs supplied a companyy of the report to the appellant and informed that on a careful companysideration of the report and in particular of the companyclusions reached by the Enquiry Commissioner in respect of the charges framed, the President of India was of the opinion that the appellant was unsuitable to companytinue in Government service and that the President accordingly provisionally decided that the appellant should be dismissed from Government service.
8 was obtained by the appellant from the Government under a fraudulent claim sanctioned by the appellant with full knowledge of its true nature and that accordingly the appellant had received an aggregate amount of Rs.
On May 14, 1951, the Enquiry Commissioner prepared his report.
Counsel urged, 1 that the enquiry companyld number be directed by the Punjab Government as the appellant was a member of the Indian Civil Service and was number employed under the Government of Punjab 2 that in any event, the enquiry companyld number be made under the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, and companyld only be held under r. 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and the enquiry number having been held under the rule, the order passed against the appellant was without jurisdiction that the enquiry under the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution and was accordingly void and 4 that the Enquiry Commissioner held the enquiry against the appellant in a manner companytrary to the rules of natural justice in that the Commissioner did number allow the appellant sufficient opportunity to examine witnesses and to produce documentary evidence in support of his case.
The Enquiry Commissioner heard the evidence on behalf of the State at Dharamsala between July 31 and August 21, 1950.
5 and 6 related to the period when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Hoshiarpur.
1 from the Government on the basis of a claim of Raja Harmohinder Singh which was made at the appellants instance, that the appellant has also received the amount which was the subject matter of charge No.
Shah, J. Sardar Kapur Singh who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a companypetitive examination held at Delhi in 1931.
