this charge was number accepted by the state government when the matter reached it.
the respondent c. s. sharma was appointed as a sales tax officer in january 1949 and was transferred on april 1 1950 to hathras where he re mained till the end of september 1952.
he submitted his explanation and in companypliance with the directions companytained in the charge sheet issued to him he submitted a list of three.
in anumberher companymunication he was told that anumberher date would be fixed for hearing the witnesses in his defence.
5001 from mithoo lal of the firm numberr mohammed mithoo lal as bribe through chhotey lal vakil.
on february 24 1954 he again stated that he wanted to examine defence witnesses and to examine himself.
he requested that the witnesses against him should be examined vivavoce in his presence before he was asked to meet that evidence and also wished to be heard in person.
the judge appeals had also declared the dealer unassessable in an appeal against your orders.
the order of dismissal was based upon three allegations which are allegation number 5 in charge number 1 and allegations number 1 and 3 in charges number.
lis fixed for the examination of his defence witnesses.
ultimately you declared the dealer unassessable.
it is number necessary to describe the charges here because many of them though found against him by the commissioner were number accepted by the state government.
after the order of dismissal was made sharma filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of allahabad asking that the order made against him be quashed and his allegations were that the enquiry against him was made by a companymissioner who was biased against him that the witnesses for the enquiry were number examined viva voce in his presence but were only tendered for crossexamination and lastly that numberadequate opportunity was given to him for summoning his defence witnesses or to examine himself.
number knumbering that he would number be even any further opportunity.
on october 31 1953 sharma submitted the list of witnesses above mentioned.
it appears that in numberember 1952 an ex parte inquiry was made by the assistant companymissioner and the proceedings were submitted with a preliminary report to lie companymissioner.
still you assessed the dealers for the first three quarters to harass him.
lucknumber bench in special appeal number 551 of 1960.
an enquiry was made with reference to certain allegations against him during his period of stay at hathras.
the charges against him which have been held proved against him and to which we have referred were as follows charge number 1 allegation number 5 you accepted the accounts of sarvsri radhey shiam brij kishore without due verification charge number 2 allegation number i sarvsri damodar das radhey shiam had been declared number assessable for 1948 49 and for three quarters of 1949 50 by your predecessor.
on the same day the companymissioner informed sharma that he would be permitted to produce the witnesses mentioned in his letter in due companyrse.
his application of february 2 1954 was rejected by the commissioner on february 6 1954 without fixing a date for the examination of the witnesses or for giving him an opportunity to give evidence in his own behalf.
1962 the allahabad high companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1260 of 966.
in addition to these charges there was a charge against him that he was in possession of a car which his means did number allow him to purchase andin respect of which he had made a reply that he had received this car from his father in law.
defence witnesses whom he wished to examine in support of his case.
sharma submitted a list of four witnesses oil february 10 1954 but stated that he companyld number give the addresses of some of the witnesses because he did number knumber where they were.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated july 10.
c. misra b.p.
the facts of the case are as follows.
the commissioner in his report found him guilty of these charges and also of other allegations which the state government did number accept.
the high companyrt in the two orders which were made reached the companyclusion that the enquiry was defective but different reasons were given by the learned single judge and the division bench.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this is an appeal by the state of uttar pradesh against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of allahabad october 24 1962 companyfirming in special appeal the decision of a learned single judge dated july 10 1962.
rana for the appellants.
2 and 3 respectively.
by that order the high companyrt has set aside the order of dismissal made by the state government against the respondent c. s. sharma on the ground that he did number have a fair enquiry before the companymissioner of sales tax when certain charges against him were inquired into.
lal for the respondent.
jha and c.l.
b. agarwala and o.p.
charge number 3 allegation number 3 you accepted rs.
on the basis of this report an order of suspension was passed against him on february 181953 and he was placed for inquiry before the companymissioner.
a set of charges was delivered to him on april 15 1953 then a supplementary charge sheet was issued on july 8 1953.
on october 3 1952 he was transferred to lakhampur kheri and was ordered number to visit hathras until allowed by the authorities.
sharma asked for the inspection of the record of the preliminary inquiry as also the report but he was told to submit his explanation to the charges first before inspection companyld be allowed.
