the appellant was appointed a qanungo in the former state of pepsu in the year 1950.
appeal by the special leave from the judgment and order dated january 5 1959 of the punjab high companyrt in civil writ application number 460 of 1957.
this is denied on behalf of the state.
thereafter he preferred petition under art.
on the next day the state of pepsu merged in the state of punjab.
m. sikri advocate general for the state of punjab n. s. bindra and p. d. menumber for the respondents.
certain complaints having been received regarding tampering with official records he was suspended and an enquiry was held against him by the revenue secretary of pepsu government.
after perusing them he wrote on the file that the charges against the appellant were serious and that they were proved.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mudholkar j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the punjab high companyrt dismissing the appellants petition under art.
according to the appellant the aforesaid remarks amount to an order of the state government and that they were orally communicated to him by the revenue minister.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 155 of 1961.
it would appear that he had submitted an advance companyy of his appeal to the revenue minister of pepsu who called for the records of the case immediately.
then on april 2/8 1957 the minister numbered on the file c.m.
he however expressed the opinion that as the appellant was a refugee and bad a family to support his dismissal would be too hard and that instead of dismissing him outright he should be reverted to his original post of qanungo and warned that if be does number behave properly in future he will be dealt with severely.
he also observed that it was necessary to stop the evil with a strong band.
on december 1/4 1956 mr.
after the merger of pepsu with the state of punjab the file was put up before the revenue minister of punjab mr.darbara singh.
may kindly advise.
thereupon the appellant preferred an appeal before the state government.
the validity of the order of the revenue secretary dismissing the appellant was number challenged before us.
it is however companymon ground that the aforesaid remarks or order whatever they be were never communicated officially to the appellant.
m. lal and m. l. aggarwal for the appellant.
226 of the companystitution.
with this remark the file went up before the chief minister punjab who on april 16/18 1957 passed an order the companycluding portion of which reads thus having regard to the gravity of the charges proved against this official i am definitely of the opinion that his dismissal from service is a companyrect punishment and numberleniency should be shown to him merely on the ground of his being a displaced person or having a large family to support.
darbara singh remarked on the file serious charges have been proved by the revenue secretary and shri bachhittar singh was dismissed.
i would like the secretary i c to discuss the case personally on 5th december 1956.
this order was companymunicated to the appellant on may 1 1957.
his order was duly companymunicated to the appellant.
in the circumstances the order of dismissal should stand.
march 7.
as a result of that enquiry the revenue secretary dismissed him by order dated august 30 1956 on the ground that the appellant was number above board and was number fit to be retained in service.
on december 1 1953 he was appointed assistant companysolidation officer.
