Any attempt by a Government servant to seek a decision on such issues in a Court of law even in cases where such a remedy is legally admissible without first exhausting the numbermal official channels of redress, can only be regarded as companytrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and may well justify the initiation of disciplinary action against the Government servant.
The Special Committee issued a questionnaire to B. K. Sen. Some of the questions related to his giving appointments to certain persons who were related to certain witnesses in the case, his giving appointments to certain persons and companydoning the punishment previously inflicted on one person, as they were helping him in companytinuing the defence in that case and to his being instrumental in securing the appointment of another probable prosecution witness.
The Departmental enquiry against Gurbaksh Singh did number tend to interfere with the companyrse of justice.
Neither of them would companymit companytempt of Court in discharging his duty.
Proceeding in revision against the Sessions Judges orderfor further enquiry on a companyplaint filed by one Bimala Kanta Rov Choudhury against B. Sen, under s. 497, I. P. C., were pending in the High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
In the charge sheet it was stated that the respondent had gone to a companyrt of law before exhausting all his departmental remedies and this was companytrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline.
By an order companyveyed in a letter dated July 16, 1956, the State Government directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to recover ten per cent.
The suit was followed by a petition under Art.
On receipt of the said orders, the Conservator of Forests, South Circle, passed an office order appointing Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court issued numberice to the appellants and after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion that though the appellants were clearly guilty of an offence punishable under s. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, they were merely endeavouring to companyply with the instructions of the Government, the legality or propriety of which they had numberreason to doubt.
Bachan Singh, appellant, was companyducting the enquiry under the orders of Pratap Singh.
Thomas, 1930 2 Ch.
9 of his petition Previously the petitioner filed a petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act in this Honble Court in respect of this very charge sheet on the ground that this chargesheet related to the writ petition that had been filed by the petitioner Civil Writ number 528 of 1956 .
20 and 27 of 1957.
January 29.
The Under Secretary then said It may please be intimated immediately as to what action you propose to take against him.
226 of the Constitution which was, however, dismissed by the Punjab High Court on May 20,1957.
The Judgment of Das and Subba Rao JJ, was delivered by Das, J. Dayal, J. delivered a separate Judgment.
129 of 1959, to hold an enquiry against the respondent for having companytravened the instructions companytained in the circular letter quoted above.
134 1 c of the Constitution.
They have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both.
This, it was stated, amounted to an obstruction of the judicial process and interfered with the companyrse of justice in respect of the suit which was pending in the companyrt of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, a companyrt subordinate to the High Court.
Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. K. Sen, 1961 3 C.R. 460, applied.
Pratap Singh directed the enquiry under orders from Government.
Bachan Singh, appellant in the other appeal, was Divisional Forest Officer, Amritsar.
K. DAS, J. These are two appeals on certificates granted by the Punjab High Court under Art.
The Under Secretary said in his memorandum that as the respondent had number exhausted the departmental remedies open to him before going to a companyrt of law, he had rendered himself liable to disciplinary action as per the instructions companytained in the circular letter.
Bhagat Singh Chawla and K. R. Chowdhuri, for the respondents.
On receipt of this memorandum, the appellant Pratap Singh sent a companyy thereof to the Conservator of Forests, South Circle, and directed that the respondent should be proceeded with in accordance with the instructions aforesaid and a companyy of the proceedings recorded and orders passed in the case should be forwarded to him.
however, the respondents are taking up the plea that the charge sheet annexure A is number in respect of the writ petition filed in the High Court but companycerns the suit which has been filed by the petitioner and which is awaiting decision in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Amritsar.
1,136 and odd annas from the respondent Gurbaksh Singh.
The letter has been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the High Court and was in these terms I am directed to say that the question of Government servants having recourse to Courts of law in matters arising out of their employment or companyditions of service has been engaging the attention of Government for some time past and it is companysidered necessary to lay down that in the matter of grievances arising out of a Government servants employment or companyditions of service the proper companyrse is to seek redress from the appropriate departmental and Governmental authorities.
In the instant case the departmental enquiry against the respondent did number companystitute a parallel enquiry and tend to interfere with the companyrse of the litigation pending in Court and therefore, numbercontempt of companyrt had been companymitted.
The relevant facts are these.
11,366 to the Government.
In 1954, the then Chief Conservator of Forests sent a letter to the respondent alleging that there had been a short supply in the timber which was sent to the Ordnance Depot at Chhoke and that there had been a loss of Rs.
When the summons in the suit instituted in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, was served on the State Government, the Under Secretary to the said Government in the Forest and Animal Husbandry Departments, sent a memorandum to the Chief Conservator of Forests in which the attention of the latter was drawn to a circular letter issued by the Chief Secretary on January 25, 1953.
Then, on September 14,1957, the respondent made an application to the High Court to the effect that the two appellants had companymitted companytempt of companyrt punishable under s. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
The appeals are from the judgment and order of the said High Court dated November 5, 1958, by which it found the two appellants guilty of an offence punishable under s. 3 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1952 XXXII of 1952 and directed them, by way of punishment, to abandon the departmental proceedings which had been taken against the respondent Gurbaksh Singh for an alleged companytravention of the instruction companytained in a circular letter dated January 25, 1953, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government and warned them against companyplying with the said instructions.
Bachan Singh then drew up a charge sheet against the respondent and asked him to submit an explanation in writing within 15 days.
Pratap Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal number 128 of 1959, was, at the relevant time, Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab.
D. 368, distinguished.
K. Khanna, K. L. Hathi and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
Gurbaksh Singh respondent in the two appeals, was a Forester in the Punjab Forest Department.
It appears that in the year 1950 the respondent supplied three lacs cubic feet of timber to the various ordnance Depots under orders of the then Chief Conservator of Forests.
I am therefore of opinion that the facts of the case do number make out that the appellants, by their alleged companyduct, companymitted companytempt of Court.
128 and 129 of 1959.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 5, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Cr.
These instructions may, therefore, be brought to the numberice of all Government servants of your department office.
Gurbaksh Singh then instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar for a declaration that the order of recovery made against him was void and without effect.
of the loss i.e. Rs.
The letter further stated that the recovery sought to be made from the salary of the respondent was in accordance with the rules companytained in the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952, and that an opportunity had already been given to the Forester to submit an explanation and the order for recovery was made after companysidering his explanation.
The charge sheet appears to have been drawn up on or about August 30, 1957.
