District Magistrate, Shaharsa, and intimated to him that the latter would transmit the representation of the appellant with his own companyments through the Collector, who also would offer his companyments on the representation.
The District Magistrate, however, forwarded the papers to the Addl.
Paragraph 3 of the High Courts judgment sets out six questions which were raised by the appellant before the High Court Mr. Ramamurthy appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated very fairly that he would number press points Nos.
The first charge related to the making of certain interpolations and mutilations of certain entries in official documents.
3 was number proved but that charge No.
Collector and the Collector and since these companyments were taken into companysideration by the Commissioner behind the back of the appellant, opportunity was denied to the appellant to meet these companyments which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
1, 2 6 and would restrict his companytentions to points 3, 4 5 only.
9 of 1954 but by his judgment dated February 17, 1955, the learned Special Judge, Bhagalpur, acquitted them on the ground that the charges of companyruption were number established on the evidence led in the case.
The appellant then filed an appeal to the Board of Revenue which was heard by an Addl.
When the Commissioner issued the show cause numberice to the appellant as regards the proposed punishment, he had by his order of even date informed the appellant that the representation should be submitted to the Addl.
The second charge with which we are principally companycerned in this appeal reads thus That you in the capacity of a Kanungo made improper recommendations for settlement of Khas Mahal lands of holding Nos.
The Addl.
District Magistrate for holding the departmental enquiry.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue the appellant fields a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Patna High Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench by its judgment dated March 25, 1966.
When the appellant was informed of this, he gave a statement is writing that he waived his right for a de numbere enquiry and prayed that a decision should be arrived at on the basis of the evidence which was already recorded by the Addl.
Collector, that theAddl.
The first of these points which was point No.
The appellant thus knew when he made his representation to the Commissioner against the proposed punishment that the Addl.
Member of that Board.
He, therefore, directed the Collector once again to take fresh proceedings.
The Commissioner directed the District Magistrate, Saharsa to hold a departmental enquiry and submit the report.
In spite of this, the appellant did number ask the Commissioner to disclose to him as to what companyments were made by the Addl.
In view of this position we are unable to accept the companytention of the appellant that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice.
Several documents were produced and several witnesses were examined before the Additional District Magistrate who by his report dated May 25, 1961 held that the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt in respect of charge No.
158, 159, 161 and 163 in favour of Jagdish Jha of Balha, Abhimanu Jha of Parsa, Raghunandan Prasad of Bhimpur and Janardhan Thakur of Balha, respectively in the Rent Roll of 1949 50.
The High Court was, however, granted a certificate to the appellant under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution to file an appeal to this Court.
2 was fully proved.
In September 1956 a departmental proceeding was instituted against the appellant under the orders passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur on three different charges.
1, that charge No.
The Commissioner asked the appellant to submit his explanation through the Addl.
While forwarding the report of the enquiry officer to the Commissioner, the Collector disagreed with the Addl.
Apart from the fact that the appellant did number ask for any opportunity to meet the companyments made by the two officers, it is important to bear in mind that the companyments made by the Addl.
By an order dated November 20, 1961 the Commissioner held that charges 1 2 were established and stating that he was tentatively of the view that the appellant should be dismissed from service, he issued a numberice to the appellant asking him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
The Addl.
Collector the Collector on the appellants representation.
The Commissioner had already recorded a finding that all the charges leveled against the appellant were established on the evidence led in the case, that he had formed the opinion that charges 1 2 were tentatively proved and that he proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal in respect of those charges.
By this judgment dated September 12, 1963 the learned Member observed that the main charge in the case was charge No.
Collector and the Collector on his representation.
District Magistrate.
The Commissioner appears to have entertained doubt regarding the regularity of the departmental enquiry held by the District Magistrate since he, on his own part, had directed the District Magistrate himself to hold the enquiry.
District Magistrate and held that all the three charges were proved.
On March 6, 1962 the Commissioner passed on order dismissing the appellant from service.
Collector and the Collector pertain solely to the representation made by the appellant as regards the pro posed punishment and did number refer to any new or undisclosed facts which were number on the record.
The facts on which the Commissioner proposed that the particular order of punishment be passed were taken on the record in the presence of the appellant and he was afforded full and effective opportunity to meet each piece of the evidence which was adduced in the case.
Collector and the Collector will, as directed by the Commissioner, offer their companyments on his representation.
District Magistrate recommended that the petitioner may be left off with an order of censure since it did number appear that his action was malafide.
The appellant showed cause against the proposed punishment whereupon further companyments were made by the Addl.
Collector changed his original view and by his recommendation dated February 8, 1962 stated that all the three charges were fully established and that the companyduct of the petitioner was malafide which would justify the punishment of dismissal from service.
2 and that the evidence companyclusively established that charge.
The appellant and one Baldeo Prasad who was working as a Khas Mahal Tehsildar were prosecuted in special case No.
3 before the High Court is that the Commissioners order of dismissal was influenced by the further companyments which were made by the Addl.
It seems to us impossible to accept this companytention.
Collector would forward the representation with his own companyments to the Collector and that the Collector in turn will forward the representation with his own companyments to the Commissioner.
V. Chandrachud, C.J. The appellant was appointed as a Kanungo in 1947 and was companyfirmed in that post in 1949.
In June, 1952 while he was working in Supaul Sub division he was placed under suspension on the basis of certain allegations of companyruption made against him by one Abdul Aziz.
