If you send numberreply within 14 days of the receipt of this numberice orders will be passed on your case without any further reference to you.
who in your case is the Director General there are reasonable grounds for believing that after your reinstatement in service on May 26, 1951 you have companytinued to associate with others engaged in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about your reliability and companysequently it is proposed to take action for your companypulsory retirement from service under rule 3 of the said rules.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 6, 1960, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench Delhi in L.P. A. No.
The appellant moved this Court for special leave which was granted on February 21, 1961, and that is how the matter is before us.
If you.
In either case, you may within the same period submit any representation you wish to make as to why you should number be companypulsorily retired from service under the said Rules companyy attached .
You are further asked to state whether you wish to be heard in person by the Director General or by the Committee of Advisers before orders are passed on your case.
do number reply within that period, it will be assumed that you admit the allegations.
83 of 62.
If Shri Menon fails to submit his defence within the period stipulated above, orders will be passed ex Parte.
The answer runs into 9 pages typescript to the effect that the charge was value.
November 22.
He was duly served with a numberice to cause, and his case was in due companyrse companysidered by the Committee of Advisers, who recommended that he be retained in service.
baseless and without foundation, and requesting for a personal hearing before the second respondent, as well as before the Committee of Advisers.
On November 17, 1952, the appellant submitted his answer to the show cause numberice.
Sd/ Director General, Posts and Telegrapbs, New Delhi.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the, Punjab High Court, dated October 6, 1960, dismissing Letter Patent Appeal from, the judgment of a single Judge of that Court, dated September 10, 1957, dismissing the appellants writ petition under Art.
ST A. 98 10/52/SEA Dated New Delhi, the 28th Aug. 53.
In January 1,949, he was suspended from service on account of certain activities of his which were companysidered to be objectionable.
The Court was agreed as to the order to be passsed , namely, that the petition should be dismissed on th ground that numberwrit companyld issue against the respondents though the judges were Kaushalendara Rao, J. was of the view that even on number agreed, on the merits of the companytroversy merits the Court companyld number grant any relief, whereas Sen and Bhutt, JJ.,
If after companysidering your representation the companypetent authority decides that numberfurther action should be taken against you, You will be informed accordingly,, If after companysidering your representation the companypetent authority companysiders that there are sufficient grounds for taking further.,
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, R. H. Dhebar, D. Meson, for the respondents.
You are hereby required to proceed on such leave as may be admissible to you with effect from November 15, 1952.
action, the materials on record together with your representation will be referred to the Committee of Advisers set up by the Government of India for this purpose.
The case was heard by a Full Bench of three judges companysisting of Kaushalendra Rao, V. R. Sen and Bhutt, JJ.
Sta 98 10/52 New Delhi, the 3rd November, 1952.
On August 28, 1953, the following order was passed against him Memorandum No.
Director General.
Shri Menon submitted his representation on June 18, 1953.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
STA 98 10/52/SEA Dated New Delhi, the 19th May, 1953.
While he was so employed at Nagpur, he was served with a numberice dated November 3, 1952, from the office of the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, under the provisions of rr.
226 of the Constituton.
After passing his departmental examination in 1952, the appellant was appointed as officiating Sub Divisional Officer, Telegraphs.
The appellant submitted a letter on January 23, 1953, requesting that at the time of the oral hearing all the evidence on which the charges mentioned in your letter No.
A companyy of the record of personal hearing granted to him is forwarded herewith.
This case has had a chequered history as will appear from the following facts.
3 and 4 of Civil Services Safeguarding of National Security Rules, 1949 which hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules in the following terms No.
Shri V. S. Menon, Sub divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Nagpur, was called upon to answer the following charges Soon after your arrival in Nagpur important local Communists were reported to have companytacted you and during the discussion you were reported to have interested yourself in the political activities of the Communist party and other political organisation and Nagpur.
The following are the allegations against you Soon after your arrival in Nagpur important local companymunists were reported to have companytacted you and I during the discussions you were reported to have interested yourself in the political activities of the Communist party and other political organisations and groups in Nagpur.
took the view that it was number companyered by Art.
In pursuance of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, the appellant was reinstated with effect from May 26, 1951.
You are hereby required to state within 14 days of the receipt of this numberice whether you accept or deny the accuracy of the above allegations.
STA 98 10/52 dated 3.11.1952 have been framed, may be made available to him so that on scrutinising them he might prove his innocence.
The appellant was appointed in June 1943 as an Engineering Supervisor by the second respondent.
There are two respondents, namely, I. the Union of India and 2 Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi.
You are also reported to be actively,continuing your association with Shri N. Mukherjee and other prominent local Communists.
On January 28, 1953, the second respondent examined the appellant in person, and thereafter on May 19, 1953, he was served a second show cause numberice, which is in these terms Memo No.
V. S. Mani, H. C. Mital and P. Kesava Pillai, for the appellant.
23 D of 1957.
You are also reported companytinuing your association groups, in to be actively with Shri B. N. Mukherjee and other prominent local Commu nists.
Whereas in the opinion of the Competent Authority as defined in rule 2 of the Civil Services Safeguarding of National Security Rules, 1949.
