A. Venkanna vs State of Hyderabad

Palnitkar, C.J.—This is a petition for the issue of Writ of Certiorari or some other appropriate order.

It is alleged that the Petitioner is a permanent employee in the Police Department of the Government of Hyderabad; being appointed as Sub- Inspector of Police on 1-8-1950, that he was confirmed in his post on 1-5-53: that on 19-7-54 a complaint was filed against the Petitioner-Sub-Inspector of Police, Tandur: that Manick Sarma and Gulam Mohamed took radio sets from the complainant on hire-purchase contract and failed to pay the instalments due and also violated some of the terms and conditions of the agreement thereby committing criminal breach of trust: that the Petitioner thereupon undertook to investigate all the cases and proceeded to seize the radio set in question: that whereupon Manick Sarma offered resistance in seizing the same: that the said Manick Sarma who was a teacher and remained absent for sometime from duty was arrested by the Petitioner and produced in the Court: that after release from custody the said Manick Sarma died a few days later and the doctors opined that he diea of titanus poisoning: that a final report of the death of the accused was made to the Court and the case against Manick Sarma was closed: that as a result of the death of Sarma complaints were made against the Petitioner: he was suspended and the departmental enquiry was ordered by the I.G. of Police: that the D.S.P., Gulbarga, who made the enquiry proceeded against the Petitioner under the Hyderabad Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and framed a charge sheet for gross mis-behaviour and suspicious conduct; that the Petitioner submitted his explanation on the same date that further the case was enquired by Sri. K. Bhimsen Rao Superintendent, ''X'' Branch, C.I.D., who framed fresh charges that the departmental enquiry in which a number of witnesses were examined and cross-examined, ended on 23-1-1955; that the Petitioner was released from suspension; but that a show-cause notice was issued by the I.G.P. on 7-3-1955 asking the Petitioner to show cause why the punishment of stoppage of two increments should not be inflicted, to which the Petitioner submitted his explanation; that the I.G.P. thereupon passed orders inflicting the punishment of stoppage of two increments and censure; that while Petitioner was thinking of preferring an appeal an additional show-cause notice was issued by the Government on 26-9-1955 in exercise of its powers under revision calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted on the Petitioner: that the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 24-10-1955 and also stated that his right of appeal was frustrated.

Finally the Government sent the final orders holding that the Petitioner had deliberately registered the case against Sarma for a non-cognizable civil dispute and thoughtlessly followed it up, and that it was impossible to accept that the Petitioner had no hand in handcuffing the deceased teacher. The Government, ordered the reduction of the Petitioner to the post of a Head Constable, Grade I, for a period of two years. These orders were issued through the D.S.P., Raichur.

Aggrieved by the above two Government Orders the Petitioner filed this petition. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner argued that the order of the Government ought to be quashed inasmuch as the Petitioner, was already given a punishment of stoppage of two increments and the further order of the Government of reduction to the post of a Head Constable would operate as a double punishment and therefore it should not have been imposed.

He further argued that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and that the order impeached in the petition involved, a gross mis-interpretation of a substantial question of law and that the show-cause notice issued by the Government was not accompanied by any proceeding and therefore was hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the arguments of the learned Advocate we do not find any contravention of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution in case. The show-cause notice issued by the Government on 26-9-1955, Ex. 15, clearly indicates nature of the proceedings which are instituted the order of the Inspector General and which have been narrated in detail by the Petitioner in the writ petition.

The notice further states that the punishment awarded by the I.G.P. viz., stoppage of increments for two years does not meet the ends of justice and that the Government have accordingly decided provisionally to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service and that Sri Venkanna, the Petitioner, was therefore asked to show cause within 30 days as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be awarded.

In our opinion this is in compliance with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution which states that

No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.

In the Notice under consideration, the Government have sufficiently shown the action proposed to be taken against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also been informed in what connection the action has been proposed to be taken. He was fully conversant with the facts. The enquiry was complete and according to law witnesses were produced by both the parties examining and cross-examining. The argument, therefore, that no copy of the proceedings against the Petitioner was attached to the notice holds no water. There is no allegation of any irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry.

The second contention that under Rule 30 of the Classification Control Rules, the Government have no power to revise or alter an order imposing the penalty has also no substance. It was argued that the Government can revise the order only in cases in which no appeal is preferred, and that the Petitioner was thinking of preferring an appeal and applied for copies, but he could not file the appeal in view of the notice issued by the Government.

We are not impressed with this argument. There was nothing to prevent the Petitioner from filing the appeal against the order of the I.G.P. As actually there was no appeal preferred, according to Rule 30, the power of revision could be exercised. Moreover, even if an appeal was preferred, the appellate authority had, under Rule 23 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Control and Appeal Rules, sufficient power to enhance the sentence, if it considered the sentence to be inadequate.

Further we are also of the opinion that the Government being in over-all charge of the Department they have the power to imose proper punishment if they feel that the punishment awarded by subordinate officer is not sufficient, provided the statutory rules as laid down are followed. For these reasons we do not find any force in this writ petition which is summarily dismissed.