The charge then made against the appellant was that on July 5, 1960 he had refused to examine a woman patient who had companye to the hospital with an out door chit and that the husband of the woman was forced to pay a sum of Rs.
The Revenue Minister recorded his opinion that instead of dismissing him he be reverted to his original post.
They too were in force at the time the appellant joined service.
The envelope companytaining the letter was addressed to the appellant by his Kanpur address which he appeared to have furnished to the office.
Thereafter, the State of Pepsu merged with the State of Punjab.
subsequent to the merger, the Chief Minister, Punjab, dis missed the appeal.
The Punjab Civil Services Rules were also made by the Governor of Punjab under s. 241 of the Government of India Act and came into force from April 1, 1941.
If he had been actually on duty, the order of suspension would have taken effect from the moment it reached him and from which moment alone the appellant companyld have companyplied with that order by ceasing to work any further in the discharge of his duties.
We do number know when these remarks were made.
Orders may be issued in any sequence.
The order of suspension reached the appellant, according to his statement, on June 19, 1961, though it was despatched by the Director, Health Services, Punjab, on June 3, 1961.
Mrs. Kairon He got a trunk call booked and he got engaged in companyversation elsewhere and I have found out things from you.
Government Gazette extraordinary dated June 10.
It is therefore immaterial whether the publication of the orders in the Gazette Extraordinary amounted to sufficient numberice to the appellant of the various orders and whether the letters companymunicating to him the orders reached him after the due date of retirement.
September 2, 1963.
The appellant refused to companyply this demand and this was a further source of irritation and hostility.
This order was companymunicated to the appellant.
His leave was sanctioned with effect from December 18, 1960 and this was gazetted on January 27, 1961.
On the excuse that this companyplaint had been made, the appellant was transferred from Jullundur to Amritsar by an order dated December 6, 1960.
The receipts do number show that these parcels companytained medicines.
The Director, Health Services, number only addressed an ordinary companyer under postal certificate to the appellant but also followed it up by a registered letter on June 5.
The order in which the two orders were issued does number affect in substance the validity of the two orders so long as the Governor had the power to suspend the appellant and revoke his leave.
11, 1941 rules, if he was found guilty of grave misconduct as a result of the departmental proceedings the Government was to institute against him.
Om Prakash brought that box from the appellants place to Pahwa.
It is this leave that was revoked by the impugned orders on June 3, 1961 and under these the ap pellant was placed under suspension and an inquiry was started later in the matter.
The tape recorded companyversations between the appellant and the Chief Minister and his wife were played at a Press Conference on March 29, 1961, at Chandigarh.
He is bound to do so as a part of his, duty.
I S.C.R. 229.
An order of suspension of the appellant when he was on leave companyld be effective from the moment it was issued.
Naturally, the Chief Minister companyld have taken this article to be inspired by the appellant and, more so when the appellants wife published a letter in the Blitz dated March 18, 1961, practically admitting what had been alleged in that article except such matters which went against her husband.
Whatever views the Vigilance Inspector expressed about the various charges framed against the appellant in the tape recorded talk number 16 on February 13, 1961, even if they be his real views in the matter, is numberindex of the fact that the superior officers who had investigated the case had formed a similar opinion and that the action taken by the Government a few months later in formally framing charges with respect to those matters was actuated by malice.
309 of the Constitution and came into force from April 1, 1953.
Mrs. Kairon Yes.
The appellant was a Civil Surgeon in the employment of the State Government who had been granted leave preparatory to retirement, and subsequently, in June 1961, orders were passed by Government 1 revoking the leave he had originally been granted and recalling him to duty, 2 simultaneously placing him under suspension pending the result of an inquiry into certain charges of misconduct, and 3 ordering a departmental inquiry against him.
The Chief Minister companyplained that though several years had passed, Dhillons salary for the 45 days that he had been with the Chief Minister had number yet been paid to him.
The Government, number having received an acknowledgement of the appellant with respect to the receipt of the orders of suspension etc.,
He was reaching the age of 55 on June 15, 1961 and he applied for leave until that period.
In the present case the orders were effective from June 3, 1961, and their validity and effect did number depend on the date of companymunication to the appellant.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, Mohinder Singh Punnu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and B. R. G. K. Achar for P. Menon, for the respondent.
Dr. P. Singh No, you will companye today, but yesterady you went away without numberice.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 4, 1962, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No.
The implication is that it was on the Chief Ministers knowing of the article published in the Blitz dated January 14 that he directed the Vigilance Inspector to issue the letter of January 13 to.
The order of suspension bears an earlier number than the order about the revocation of leave.
Mrs. Kairon That he should go away from you.
Appellant leave the question of arrival of medicines Mrs. Kalron You sent injections.
The, orders of the Government ordinarily take effect from the moment they are issued except when they cannot be effective due to their nature.
The enquiry had been in progress since October 29 and it must have been in due companyrse that the Vigilance Officer wrote the letter dated January 13 to the appellant.
On January 17, 1961, the appellant received a letter dated January 13, 1961,from the Inspector of Vigilance, District Jullunder, enquiring from him about the place where and the date when he companyld be companytacted for ascertaining his view point on points relevant to the enquiry ordered by the Punjab Government.
It also mentioned about the recommendatory letters from the Chief Ministers sons, sister in law and brother to the Doctor.
1, 3, and 4 do refer to requests for and supplies of medicines by the appellant.
The written.
Tape recorded talks number.
The allegations in the writ petition filed by the appellant on this matter may be summarised as follows The appellant was requested by the Chief Minister to perform an operation on his son Surinder Singh in April 1960.
Appellant I had sent you those injections.
Cash memos for the purchase of two Singer sewing machines by Sardar Bahadur Bagh Singh, father in law of the appellant in July 1959 and October 1959, have been filed.
Notifications about the suspension and revocation of leave from June 3, 1961, were issued on June 3, 1961.
The appellant was apparently number at Kanpur when the letter reached him and the letter took unduly long on being redircted to the address where it was delivered to the appellant.
It is alleged in the petition that this firm was either directly or indirectly owned by Surendra Singh Kairon or a close relation of his.
Ordinarly, the numberification about these orders would have been published in the Gazette in due companyrse.
It is stated in the written statement filed by the respondent that the District Magistrate, Jullunder, made such a companyplaint to the Home Secretary, who happened to be at jullunder and that the Home Secretary companyveyed it to the appellant at a meeting at which the Inspector General of Prisons and the Collector were also present.
This went on for about 7 months but in or about April, 1960 the appellant desired Kirpa Singh to look out for a lodging and board elsewhere and the latter had to do so.
published the orders in the Punjab 1963 Supp.
do number reflect an honest opinion in the companytext of certain facts on record, a few of which are outlined below.
His letter Exhibit D 1, however does number indicate that he felt annoyed at leaving the appellants house where he had stayed from September 1959 to the end of March 1960.
Both these persons, Om Prakash and Pahwa, have filed affidavits.
In April 1961, the appellants wife sent a pamphlet Acts of companyruption by Shri Partap Sing Kairon and his 51 2 S. C. India64 family members to the Members of Parliament and other leading persons throughout the companyntry.
The appellant did number implead him in the first instance.
Dr. P. Singh Why ?
Two points were urged before us by the appellant who argued the case in person and presented the facts and the law with companymend able clarity and moderation.
There is number sufficient material on the record to show when it was redirected and what caused this delay.
It was after the decision of this Court in R. P. Kapur v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon 1 that the appellant applied for the impleading of the Chief Minister as the respondent in the petition.
It is alleged that in September 1960, the Chief Minister sent a message through the Home Secretary, Punjab, to the effect that he had been over liberal towards the Akali prisoners in the District Jail.
The orders of the Governor were companymunicated to the Director, Health Services, Punjab, by the Secretary to the Government in the Medical and Health Department by his letter Annexure J dated June 3, 1961.
He said he did number expect this thing from you.
There was a reason for their anxiety to see that the orders companyld be made known to the appellant as he was due to retire from June 16, 1961.
The grant of leave to the appellant in 1960 does number therefore indicate that the Government had number received any companyplaint against him by the time it granted him leave and that the Governments subsequent action against the appellant was mala fide.
The next reason is said to be that the Chief Minister had used the appellant extensively in the Karnal Murder Case, off the record, when it was the subject matter of an appeal.
It was alleged that unjustified personal grie vances arose between the appellant and Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab, in or about 1960, that the impugned orders were passed mala fide in the exercise of power, if any, vested in the respondent, the State of Punjab in the Ministry of Health, that this was an abuse of power and was intended to feed the grudge of the Chief Minister against him.
Kirpa Singh did stay at the appellants house in the alleged period.
statement shows that these remarks were number made by the Chief Minister but were made by the Secretary in the Health Department.
The facts of the case leading up to the appeal before us are set out by our learned Brother Dayal, J. in his judgment fully and in great detail and so we have thought it unneces sary to cumber this judgment with them.
the appellant for ascertaining the place and the date when he companyld interrogate him in companynection with the enquiry.
It was discretionary with the Government to grant leave or number.
16.00 for her examination at his residence.
The first of them was that every one of the impugned orders of June 1961 a recalling him from the leave previously granted, b placing him under suspension pending an inquiry, and c starting an inquiry against him were illegal for the reason that such action on the part of Government was companytrary to and number permitted by the relevant Service Rules applicable to him.
Tape recorded talk number 3 in August 1959 records Mrs. Kairons companyversation about receiving a machine and number liking it on account of its companyour and the appellants telling her, that they would deduct the money in certain companytingencies.
Surinder I will companye to you in the evening.
In July 1959, a wooden box was sent to Mrs. Kairon through Pahwa who was then the Traffic Manager of the Punjab Roadways at Amritsar.
Both Kirpa Singh and Surendra Singh have denied Surendra Singhs having any companycern with the National Motors at jullunder.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal NO.
The State has number filed any affidavit by her in denial of these statements.
In that case a Government servant preferred an appeal against his dismissal by the Revenue Secretary of Pepsu Government to the state Government of Pepsu.
It referred to Dr. Dhillons affair.
medicine parcels to the Chief Ministers wife by registered post and that he was asked to supply them out of the hos pital stock.
That application was rejected by the High Court as numberrelief had been claimed against him.
It described the appellant to be the henchman of the Chief Minister and a handyman for Ms family members.
In fact, Kirpa Singh, by his letter, expressed his thanks to the appellant.
The police was investi gating into the companyplaint against the appellant in December 1960 and it would have been too much for the Government to form a definite opinion about the action to be taken against the appellant then.
This allegation is very vague.
133 1 c of the Constitution.
Mrs. Kairon He said why did you do it if you did number have the strength to keep him.
We do number agree with this companytention.
They were published in the Gazette Extraordinary as the Government it appears from the written statement, had the impression that the appellant was avoiding the receipt of the letter addressed to him.
They describe the box to be of such a size that it companyld number possibly companytain the Singer sewing machine.
The matter was closed as a result of what was talked about at the meeting.
The impugned orders in the present case were formally issued by the Governor on June, 1961, and were even published in the Gazette extraordinary on June 10.
The petition was dismissed by the learned Judges, but on application by the appellant, he was granted a certificate of fitness on the strength of which he has filed the present appeal.
and referred to the various matters stated by him in the petition.
Reference has been made in this companynection to the tape recorded companyversation the appellant had with the Inspector General of Prisons in November 1960.
The case reported as Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab l is number apposite and does number support the companytention.
Mrs. Kairon Those tablets have number been received.
The legality of these orders was challenged by the appellant in the petition that he filed in the High Court.
It is alleged for the appellant that the Chief Minister companyld have seen the companyy of the Blitz dated January 14 at Delhi on January 13, 1961 and that he then started vindictive proceedings against the petitioner and used the Government machinery in a malicious manner to satisfy his personal malice and vendetta.
He joined the service as a direct recruit on August 21, 1947.
was delivered by N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.
The companypetency of the Governor to make the orders was questioned.
It referred to the Chief Ministers son having a garage in Jullunder and to the Boarding of the Manager of the Garage with the Civil Surgeon.
From Circuit House.
Mrs. Kairon Oh, you know what Sardar Sahib said.
133 1 c .
The Governor further passed an order under r. 3.26 d of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
This led to some move for an adjournment motion in the Punjab Legislative Assembly on March 30.
A number of affidavits sworn by Mrs. Sodhi, Pahwa, Yog Raj, Om Prakash, Surendra Singh Kairon and Kirpa Singh were filed on behalf of the respondent in the Court below.
226 of the Constitution praying for quashing, by a writ of cer tiorari or other suitable directions, the orders of the Punjab Government 1 suspending him ii revoking his leave iii companypelling him to companytinue in service after he had attained the age of superannuation, and iv ordering a departmental enquiry against him.
The judgment of S. K. Das, K. Subba Rao and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.,
On June 3, 1961, the Governor of Punjab ordered the suspension of the appellant with immediate effect as the Government had decided that a departmental enquiry be instituted against him under r. 7 of the Punjab Civil Ser vices Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952.
Dr. P. Singh From me ?
The Chief Minister desired that after the operation his son should stay under the care of the appellant at Jullundur during his companyvalescence.
961 of 1961.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab, is directed against its order dismissing the appellants petition under Art.
The appellant reached the Selection Grade of the Civil Medical Service, Class I, in January 1955 and was trans ferred to Jullunder as Civil Surgeon in April 1956.
226 of the Constitution and has been preferred pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted under Art.
The newspapers also, according to the appellants own petition, published in their issues of June 15 about the numberification companycerning the respondent in the Gazette Extraordinary.
80 of 1963.
The next companytention is that these orders of June 3 were actually companymunicated to the appellant after the date of his retirement and is therefore ineffective.
Another reason for the Chief Ministers harbouring a grievance against the appellant is said to have arisen in April 1960 on account of the appellants asking the Chief Ministers friend, Kirpa Singh, whom he had kept as a guest for about 7 months, to leave the appellants house.
It stated that the Civil Surgeon is said to have despatched several.
It was number a case of suspension.
There companyld therefore be numberreason for the Chief Minister to feel annoyed and bear grudge against the appellant on account of Kirpa Singh number staying as a guest of the appellant from April 1960, even though Kirpa Singh was a friend of the Chief Minister and was kept as guest by the appellant at the instance of Surendra Singh, as appears from the tape recorded talk number 15.
This letter purported to be with reference to enquiries number.
The registered companyer was further marked express delivery.
The High Court agreed with the companytention for the respondent and dismissed the appellants petition.
He further sent a companyy of that letter and its enclosures by registered post to the appellant on June 5, 1961.
might number be interrupted by the change of station, but that his transfer in December was therefore out of the ordinary and done with a view to inconvenience and humiliate him and deprive him of his practice at Jullundur.
That seems to be the starting point of the action taken against the appellant, for on January 13, 1961 the Vigilance Officer sent a companymunication to the appellant to offer his explanation in regard to certain charges which were then the subject of inquiry.
It appears from this companyversation that exaggerated information had reached the Chief Minister and made him send the message and that he was satisfied when the I.G. of Prisons explained the matter to him.
They have been referred to as the 1959 rules in the judgment of the High Court and at the hearing as they were amended from time to time and were re printed in 1959.
It is also alleged that among the expensive articles supplied were two Singer sewing machines.
was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. AYYANGAR, J. This appeal is against a judgment of the High Court, Punjab, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant in that Court under Art.
The appellant, Sardar Partap Singh, Joined the Punjab Civil Medical Service, Class 1, in 1947.
The letter, Annexure J, dated June 3, 1961 states that the evidence brought on record was sufficiently strong to warrant serious action against him.
Kirpa Singh was the Manager of National Motors at jullunder.
The appellants further case is that as a result of these incidents or sources of irritation and displeasure of the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister was thinking of taking some steps against him and that he got a companyplaint against him on October 29, 1960 which he sent up for investigation.
The respondent State refuted the companytention that the impugned orders were passed mala fide on account of the alleged grievances of the Chief Minister and stated that the Government was companypetent under rules governing the services of the appellant to pass the impugned orders and that the appellants allegations had numberhing to do with the orders suspending him and revoking his leave preparatory to retirement.
The appellant thus having realised the hostility of the Chief Minister and number desiring to companytinue much longer in service, made an application for leave preparatory to retirement.
The dissenting Opinion of Raghubar Dayal and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.,
Om Prakash however had stated in the receipt, Annexure C. 9, that he had received a box bearing label Singer Sewing Machine from Dr. Partap Singh.
She stated that she sent parcels of medicines by registered post and other means to the wife of the Chief Minister and that the Garage Manager stayed with them as required by the Chief Ministers wife.
A Chief Ministers sending a message to an officer about certain companyplaint received against him cannot be taken to indicate his ill will against that officer.
The operation was performed.
This is a far fetched idea.
Dr. P. Singh No, number from me.
The appellant appeared in person.
He remained there till he proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement sometime in December 1960.
The second ground of challenge was that these orders, assuming them to be within the power of Government on a proper interpretation of the rules were passed mala fide, by or at the instance of the Chief Minister, Punjab, who was personally hostile to him by reason of certain incidents and circumstances which he set out and that the impugned orders were prompted by the desire on the part of the Chief Minister to wreak personally his vengeance on the appellant.
The remarks of the Revenue Minister were number companymunicated to the appellant.
As the appellant has failed to make out the other point about the orders being companytrary to the Service Rules we di rect that there shall be numberorder as to companyts, here and in the High Court.
The Governors order under r. 3.26 d of these rules was that in view of the appellants reaching the age of superannuation on June 16, 1961 he be retained in service beyond that date till the companypletion of the departmental enquiry.
70, 3 and 27 dated October 29, 1960, January 11, 1961 and April 17, 1961 respectively against the appellant.
The other two reasons for the Chief Ministers being aggrieved with the appellant relate to what happened sub sequent to April 1960.
With me your understanding was that you will go only after showing me in the evening.
There is numberhing on the record to indicate which requests for what medicines and articles and when were refused by the appellant and thus gave cause for grievance to the Chief Minister.
Copies of this letter were sent to the then Civil Surgeon, Jullunder, and the Accountant General, Punjab, for information.
On June 10, 1961, numberifications about the Governors placing the appellant under suspension and fixing his headquarters at Chandigarh and about his revoking, with effect from June 3, the leave preparatory to retirement which had been sanctioned to him and retaining him in service until the enquiry into the charges against him be companycluded and a I final order passed, were published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary dated June 10, 1961.
Between January and March, several things happened which indicated to the appellant that the Government was taking action against him.
In the order dated the 3rd June, 1961 by which the appellant was placed under suspension there is reference to three inquiries one dated October 29, 1960, another of January 11, 1961 and the third dated April 17, 1961.
In other words, the Government had numberidea at that date that charges should be formulated against the appellant and that his retirement should be postponed for companypleting such an inquiry.
We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order dated June 3, 1961 revoking the leave granted and placing the appellant under suspension and the order dated June 29, 1961 directing an inquiry into the charges against him.
Dr. P. Singh Look what companyld I do.
His leave was san ctioned on December 18, 1960, and was numberified in the Punjab Gazette dated January 27, 1961.
The appellant challenged, by his writ petition, the legality of the orders of suspension, revocation of leave, retention in service after the date of superannuation and institution of the departmental enquiry, on various grounds.
His previous service in the Indian Medical Service from 1934 to 1939, in the Punjab Civil Medical Service from April 1940 to June 1941 and in the Indian Military Service in temporary rank till about the end of 1945, has numberbearing on the terms of his service as a member of the Punjab Civil Medical Service, Class 1.
The Director, Health Services, Punjab, forwarded to the appellant, with his letter dated 3/11th of July 1961, a memorandum dated June 29, 1961, statement of charges and statement of allegations which he had received from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Vigilance Department, for the appellants submitting such explanation ,is he might desire.
Mrs. Kairon Yes they were 4 injections.
It appears from certain postal receipts filed by the appellant that certain parcels were sent to Mrs. Pratap Singh Karion in July and October 1957, March and September 1958 and March 1959.
The appellant was on leave and was number discharging any official functions.
On the appellants application, it granted the necessary certificate under Art.
It was stated by the appellant that in the State officers were usually transferred only during the months March or April, so that the education of their children etc.
The appellant has questioned the companyrectness of the impugned orders, broadly speaking, on two grounds.
Dr. P. Singh Why.
This was in companynection with the enquiry instituted on October 29, 1960.
The Director, Health Services, companymunicated these orders to the appellant by a letter, Annexure 1, dated June 3, despatched under postal certificate.
The appellant was requested to give a false certificate regarding the services of Dr. Dhillon.
The appellants date of birth is June 16, 1906.
These rules were issued under the proviso to Art.
