Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent preferred an appeal against the same to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Disciplinary Authority.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition before a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 1985 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.
The Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge by setting aside the direction for reinstatement of the respondent in service and permitting the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent from the stage of giving a fresh numberice to show cause against the punishment to be proposed by him.
Accordingly, the learned Judge by his order dated September 7, 1985 quashed the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent in service.
It thus appears that the Division Bench as also the learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the order of dismissal was vitiated as the Disciplinary Authority failed to give to the respondent an opportunity to show cause against the punishment of dismissal before the same was imposed on him.
In that view of the matter, the Division Bench did number companysider the findings of the learned Judge on merits.
The appellants preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Further, the learned Judge took the view that as numberopportunity was given to the respondent to show cause against the punishment before the same was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and as numbercopy of the Inquiry Officers report was supplied to him, the order of dismissal was vitiated.
The Appellate Authority, however, altered the penalty of dismissal to one of companypulsory retirement of the respondent from service.
The Appellate Authority elaborately companysidered the facts and circumstances of the case and by its order dated July 8, 1981 upheld the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the charges against the respondent were proved.
In view of the said finding, the Collector of Customs by his said order dismissed the respondent from service.
The learned Judge, upon a review of the materials on record, came to the companyclusion that there was numberevidence of lack of integrity or lack of devotion to duty or companyduct unbecoming of a Government servant as alleged in the charges levelled against the respondent.
The respondent, K.S. Mahalingam, was the Examiner of Madras Customs House.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Division Bench by its judgment dated September 13, 1985 agreed with the learned Single Judge that the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to show cause against the punishment imposed on him by the.
It is also number disputed that after the order of dismissal was passed, the respondent was supplied with a companyy of the report of the Inquiry Officer which enabled him to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order of dismissal.
Anand Prakash, C.V. Subba Rao, R.D. Agarwala and V.S.N. Chari for the Appellants.
Hence this appeal by the appellants.
In the instant case, such an opportunity has been given to the respondent.
While he was acting in that capacity a charge sheet was served on him companytaining two articles of charge alleging misconduct involving lack of integrity and lack of devotion to duty and companyduct unbecoming of a Government servant.
The Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Collector of Customs, Madras, examined the report of the Inquiry Officer and by his order dated May 15, 1980 came to the finding that both the charges framed against the respondent were proved.
The respondent submitted his defence, inter alia, denying the charges.
1279 of 1986.
The Inquiry Officer held that both the articles of charge were established.
809 of 1985.
