Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan vs State

Kawoosa, J.—Through the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal Challenge has been thrown to the judgment of learned Single Judge of this

court passé don 21.11.1980 in writ petition No. 193/79 titled, 'Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan versus State of J and K and others. The Writ Court

has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

Shorn of details the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, was employed as Research Officer, Disease

Investigation, Sheep and Goat in the Animal Husbandry Department and was posted at Srinagar. A complaint was lodged against him which

resulted in the investigation of the case by the Anti corruption Commission under J and K Civil Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission)

Act, 1962. The Commission framed articles of charge against the appellant . He was tried by the Commission for the offenses alleged against him

and the entire evidence from both sides was recorded during the trial. During such proceedings, J and K Government Servants Prevention of

Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1962 Act') was repealed and was replaced by another Act called the J and K

Public Servants (Prevention of ) Corruption Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Act'). Under the 1975 Act an authority called the

AntiCorruption Tribunal came into existence in place of Anticorruption Commission which existed under the 1962 Act. Under the 1975 Act a

bench of Tribunal consisting of two members, namely, Mr. Justice Khalil Ahmad, Chairman and Mr. L.D.Thakar as member heard the case and

passed two conflicting judgments. Whereas the member, Shri L.D.Thakar vide his judgment dated 30th June, 1976 found the appellant guilty of

the charges of misappropriation and recommended his dismissal from service and further recommended that the accused appellant be prosecuted

in a court of law along with Sh. Ghulam Rasool Reshi, Store Keeper; Sh. R.L.Bhat, Cashier; Sh. Nazir Ahmad and also the proprietor of firm

Dwarika Nath Dhar and Sons, the Chairman found the appellant to be innocent and held that the charges were not proved against him. Difference

of opinion having thus arisen, a reference in terms of Section 18 of the 1975 Act was made to the third member, namely, Shri G.M.Mir for his

opinion. Shri G.M.Mir heard the case afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. But ultimately he concurred with the view taken

by Shri L.D.Thakar, finding the appellant guilty. A notice was then issued to the petitioner appellant by the Governor to show cause as to why he

be not dismissed from service. The petitioner replied the notice, but the Governor, not being satisfied with his reply, passed an order on 20th

August, 1979 being Order No. 27GRBandF dismissing the appellant from service. Appellant through the medium of aforesaid writ petition

challenged the dismissal order of various grounds which did not find favour with the WritCourt which dismissed the writ petition. Appellant has thus

assailed the judgment of the WritCourt through this appeal on various grounds.

The grounds of appeal are that there was difference of opinion between the Chairman, Mr. Justice Khalil Ahmad and the Member, Mr.

L.D.Thakar. According to first proviso to Subsection 3 of Section 18 of the 1975 Act only the question regarding which difference of opinion

occurred was to be referred to the third member through the Chairman and the opinion of the third member was to prevail. Learned counsel for the

appellant has contended that Mr. Justice Khalil and Mr. LD.thakar both exonerated the appellant with regard to the charge of misappropriating an

amount of Rs. 9992.03. Difference of opinion between the two members was only with regard to the charge No.1 i.e. misappropriation of 100

grams of Girdleys and 6 Nos. of Kipps. But no point of reference was made to the third member. Instead the whole case was referred to third

Member, Mr. G.M.Mir, who heard the case afresh and formulated his opinion regarding the whole case which is against the provisions of the Act

of 1975. Secondly, it was argued that under section 17(6) of the 1975 Act, Governor has not recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or

otherwise of the findings and the punishment proposed by the Tribunal, but has arrived at the provisional conclusion in regard to the punishment to

be imposed and he has in a mechanical and routine manner dealt with the case without applying his mind, accepted the recommendation of the

Tribunal and passed the dismissal order against the appellant.

Thirdly, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that S/Shri Ghulam Rasool Reshi, Store Keeper; R.LBhat, Cashier; Nazir Ahmad

and the proprietor of the firm have been held as coaccused in misappropriating the amount by all the three members of the Tribunal, so their

evidence as prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon by the Tribunal against the accused.

Fourthly, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed before us that the defence evidence has not been appreciated properly by the Tribunal

which has caused prejudice to the appellant. All these arguments have been repelled by the other side while contending that Member, Mr. L.D.

Thakar has not exonerated the appellant in the second charge for misappropriating Rs. 9992.03, but has equally held him responsible for such

misappropriation. So there was no need to refer the point of difference of opinion to the third member and the third member has fully agreed with

Mr. L.D. Thakar. According to the counsel, Shri G.M.Mir, the third member has not gone beyond his scope, but has concurred with Mr.

L.D.Thakar. Secondly, it as argued by him that the Governor has not in a mechanical manner dealt with the case, but has accepted the

recommendation after fully being satisfied with such recommendation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the rival arguments advanced before us.

Before entering upon the arguments, we feel it necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the 1975 Act.

Section 18.

The Chairman of the Tribunal may direct any two or more members to sit together as a bench, and may by order in writing allot or recall and

reallot in such manner as he thinks fit any inquiry case or other proceedings referred to or pending before the Tribunal or any Bench thereof.

(2) Every Bench of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the Tribunal duly constituted under this Act and shall have all the powers of the Tribunal

under this act.

(3) In case of difference of opinion among the members of the Tribunal or of the Bench the opinion of the majority shall prevail;

Provided that where a Bench is constituted of two members only the question regarding which the difference of opinion occurs shall be referred to

the Chairman who may decide the question himself or may refer the question to some other member of the Tribunal and thereupon the opinion of

the Chairman or the third member, as the case may be, shall prevail; Provided further that the Chairman or the member to whom the question has

been referred shall afford to the accused an opportunity of being heard.

(4) The Tribunal and the Bench shall have power to act notwithstanding the absence of any member from the Tribunal or the Bench or occurrence

of any vacancy in the membership thereof; Provided that except in cases referred to in the proviso to subsection (3) the final recommendation shall

in no case be made by less than two members.

(5).........

(6)..........

(8)..........

Section 17.

Report of the Tribunal: (1) After the conclusion of the inquiry, the Tribunal shall record its finding on the various articles of the charges and submit

its recommendation to the Governor. In case in which in the opinion of the Tribunal the charges are not established the Tribunal shall record its

opinion whether the charges were entirety unfounded or the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In cases where any of the charges are held

to have been established against the accused the Tribunal shall recommend(a).........

6) After the Tribunal has submitted its recommendations and the Governor has after satisfying himself about the correctness or otherwise of the

finding and the punishment proposed by the Tribunal, arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the punishment to be imposed the accused

shall be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry and called upon to show cause by a particular date why the proposed penalty should not

be imposed upon him.

(7) After the reply of the accused to the show cause notice issued under subsection (6) has been received, the Governor may impose upon the

accused such penalty as he may deem fit and shall also pass orders regarding the treatment of the period of suspension and the recovery of the

amount referred to in subsection (5) of this section.

It is patent from the above provisions of the Act that only the point of difference was to be referred to the third Member or the Chairman, as the

case may be, for this adjudication and not the whole case.

To elucidate the point we deem it feasible to quote the articles of charge framed against the appellant.

AntiCorruption Commission Jammu and Kashmir Articles of charges against Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, Research Officer, Disease Investigation

Sheep and Goat, Srinagar. Case No. ACC (C277) 74AH.

That during the month of March, 1974 in your capacity as Research Officer, Disease Investigation Sheep and Goat, you fraudulently and

dishonestly misappropriated 100 gms of grid leys and stain six Nos. Kipps apparatus valuing Rs. 5,375/ and an amount of Rs. 9,992.03 (Total Rs.

15, 367.03) in the following manner and thus committed corruption within the meaning of Sec. 3(c) of the Jammu and Kashmir Government

Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962. 1. a) You personally issued two supply orders without entering these in your office

dispatch register bearing false and fictitious Nos. 143738 dated 18.3.1974 and 145960 dated 22.3.1974 to the firm Dwarika Nath Dhar and

Sons for the supply of:

i) 153 grams of gridleys stain and kipps apparatus (6 Nos); and ii) 50 grams of gridleys stay respectively, without any requisition having been made

by your laboratory Technical Assistant for the said Chemical/Apparatus, b) Even though against the aforementioned order dated 18.3.74 the firm

supplied to you 6 Nos. of Kipps apparatus and only 50 gms of the Chemical on 20.3.1974 and against order dated 22.3.74 another 50 grams of

the Chemical on 23.3.74 alongwith voucher Nos. 901 for Rs. 2163/ and Nos. 912 for Rs. 3373.25 respectively, you did not handover the

apparatus/chemical to your storekeeper, but falsely recorded/or got recorded at page stock register for the year 19737475.

That these had been received and were issued to the Media Room on 21.3.1974 and 24.3.1994 respectively.

2A) Voucher No. 901 dt. 20.3.74 was tampered with by you by inserting the cost of the apparatus/chemical as Rs. 6246/for 2100, sales tax Rs.

92/78 for 63 and total Rs. 6618.78 for Rs. 6163 as billed for by the supplier and the qty. of 50 grams of the chemical on it was changed to 153

gins. The words '6' (six) thousand six hundred eighteen and seventy eight paise were also inserted on it by you. b) On both the Vouchers Nos. 901

and 912 which were received by you directly from the firm and which were not got diarised in the office you recorded/or got recorded false and

fictitious certificate in the words ""submitted, received and entered into the concerned register and the initials of the storekeeper Roshan Lal Bhat

were forged below these words.

You erased the entry of the drawl of Rs. 9992.03 made at S.No. 18 page 30 and 31 of Drawal Register and also the certificate of verification

of drawals of the amounts about the items 118 on the said drawal register which had been arrested by the treasury officer Srinagar on 15.4.1974.

You deliberately and knowingly did not have necessary entries made about the receipt of the amount of Rs. 9992.03 in the Cash Book which

you would have got completed upto dated and which should have been signed by you.

In order to keep your Director, Accountant and Cashier in dark about the misappropriation committed, you made false entries at S.Nos. 1and2

pages 92 and 93 of the Contingent Register to the effect that the amounts were payable to the supplier against his voucher Nos. 901 and 912 all

these entries were not signed by you nor did you show the receipt and disbursement of this amount in the statement of drawls for March, 1974

which you submitted to the Director Sheep Husbandry.

Against the suppliers vouchers Nos. 901 (tampered with by you) and No. 912:You got prepared a bill for a total amount of Rs. 9992.03 which

you signed and on which you recorded or got recorded and singed a false certificate in the words "" certified that the above mentioned items have

been recorded and entered in the converted register. Certified that no such drawls remained unadjusted."" b) You got the amount of Rs. 9992.03

encashsed from the Government Treasury Srinagar on 25.3.1974 under voucher No. 510 dated 35.3.1974 through Nazir Ahmad Laboratory

Assistant who paid the amount to you but you did not pay this amount to the supplier and thus misappropriated it.

Accordingly, we the Members of the AntiCorruption Commission hereby charge you Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan as above and direct that enquiry

into the aforementioned charges shall be made according to the procedures laid down in the said Act. We, therefore, direct you to appear before

us on 15.11.1974atJammu.

Srinagar Sd/ Sd/

15.10.1974 Member Chairman.

We must say that though the articles of charge are various, but is patent from its perusal that these articles of charge culminate in only two main

charges against the appellate viz. firstly, the appellant fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated 100 grams of gridleys and 6 Nos. of Kipps

apparatus valuing Rs. 5965/; and secondly he fraudulently made withdrawal of Rs. 9992.03 from the Government treasury and misappropriated

the same. Thus the committed corruption within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the 1962 Act. The other charges like erasing of vouchers, signing

fraudulent vouchers etc framed against the appellant are in the same context and transactions which result in the accusation of the above two main

charges of misappropriation. The other charges are related to the manner and method employed by the appellant for the commission of the alleged

misappropriation. That being so, we deem it proper to deal with only that part of the findings arrived at by the two Members of the Tribunal which

deal with the aforesaid two main charges framed against the appellant.

Admittedly, the Chairman, Mr. Justice Khalil Ahmad exonerated the appellant of all the charges levelled against him. The Member, Mr. L.D.

Thakar also found the appellant not guilty of the charge of fraudulently misappropriation the amount of Rs. 9992.03. However, he has found the

appellant guilty of misappropriating 100 grams of gridleys and 6 Nos. of Kipps apparatus valuing Rs. 5965/

The allegation with regard to the fraudulent misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 9992.03 constituted Article No.5 of the Articles of charges

levelled against the appellant. Going through the judgment of Mr. Thakar, we find that he has concurred with Mr. Justice Khalil Ahmad with regard

to this charge. To show this, we quote the relevant portions of his judgment hereunder

Page 12

This item of the charge against accused is to the effect that with a view to keep the Director, Accountant and cashier in the dark about the

misappropriation committed by the accused, he made false entries at S.Nos. 1 and 2 at pages 92 and 93 of the contingent register to the effect that

the amounts were payable to the supplier against his Vr. Nos. 901 and 912, and these entries were not signed by the accused nor did the accused

show the receipt and disbursement of this amount in this statement of drawals for March 74 which accused submitted to the Director Sheep

Husbandry. The accused has stated in this respect that the responsibility for the maintenance of these registers was of the Accountant. Above all,

the main point for consideration is that these registers used to remain in the custody of the Accountant and not of the accused. As for keeping the

Director, Accountant and Cashier in dark it was the job of the Accountant to send the required accounts statements to the Director. As per

statement of PW3 Nazir Ahmad Cashier that he paid the amount in question to the Accountant, the question of keeping the Accountant and

Cashier in dark does not arise. The charge is, therefore, not proved against the accused.

(underlining supplied) Page 13:

As regards, charge 5(a)............The certificate in question, however, is not all correct. The accused Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan has signed this

certificate which is not all correct. As an officer it was his paramount duty to check up details before signing certificates. He is, therefore, held guilty

of this charge 5(a) along with Storekeeper Shri Roshan Lal Bhat. (b) The last item of the charge sheet against the accused is that the accused got

encashed an amount of Rs, 9992.03 from Srinagar Government treasury................Therefore, the allegation that the accused misappropriated this

amount after getting the same from Nazir Ahmad Lab. Assistant is not held proved.

(emphasis supplied)

While summing up his findings, Mr. L.D. Thakar at page 14 of his judgment, while dealing with the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 9992.03, has

held as under:

As far the said misappropriation of Rs. 9992.03 the amount having been given to the Accountant by the Cashier after drawal from the Treasury,

the accused is not held guilty of misappropriation.

(emphasis supplied)

Page 15

As far the charge for misappropriation of Rs. 9992.03 it has not been established that the accused got the said amount after drawal from the

treasury but the same was given to the Accountant Gh. Rasooi Reshi as per deposition of Nazir Ahmad Cashier. As such this charge of

misappropriation is not held established.

It is reiterated here that the Chairman Mr. Justice Khalil Ahmad has fully exonerated the appellant of all the charges. From the findings

recorded by the Member, Mr. L.D.Thakar, as extracted above, it is unambiguously dear that he has concurred with the Chairman with regard to

the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 9992.03. Thus there was no difference of opinion between the two Members in relation to this particular

charge.

With regard to the other main charge concerning the misappropriation of gridleys stain and Kipps apparatus, Mr. L.D.Thakar, Member, while

summing up his finings, at page 14 of his judgment held as under:

In respect to fraudulent and dishonest misappropriation of 100 gms of Gridleys stain and 5 Nos. Kipps apparatus (and not six as noted in the

.charge), and of an amount of Rs. 9992.03 the Store Keeper Roshan Lal, who had signed the certificate, is responsible for the said

misappropriation of 103 grams of Gridlys stain (and not 100 grams only) and the accused is also guilty of connivance for the misappropriation of

the said chemical as also for the total unaccountability of 5 Nos. Kipps apparatus.

(Underlining supplied)

Here the point of difference arose between the two Members.

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in the conclusion Mr. Thakar has found the appellant equally guilty of the charge of

misappropriating Rs. 9992.03. But we find that this argument is not convincing. We have quoted the relevant portions of the judgment of Mr.

Thakar who unshakeably has reached the conclusion that the misappropriation of Rs. 9992.03 is not established against the appellant. The

argument of learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, is devoid of any force.

Having thus found that there was a difference of opinion between the two Members in relation to only one of the two main charges, we would

now deal with the procedure that had to be adopted by the Chairman in such a situation. We have already quoted supra the relevant provisions of

the 1975 Act. The 1st Proviso to subsection (3) of Section 18 of the 1975 Act provides that where a Bench is constituted of two members, only

the question regarding which the difference of opinion occurs shall be referred to the Chairman who may decide the question himself or may refer

the question to some other member of the Tribunal and thereupon the opinion of the Chairman or the third member, as the case may be, shall

prevail. So what the Chairman was to do was to refer only the point of difference between him and the Member, Mr. LD.Thakar only to the third

member which was regarding the misappropriation of 5 Nos. of Kipps apparatus and 103 grams of Gridleys stain. The third member was not to

reopen the whole case or to hear the case afresh on all the points. He was to concentrate upon only the charge of misappropriation of 103 grams

of Gridleys and 5 Nos. of Kipps apparatus. Here we find some substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the case has not

been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1975. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in saying that this has seriously

prejudiced the appellant.

A perusal of the judgment of Mr. G.M.Mir reveals that he has heard the case afresh in accordance with his own whims which is not the

intention of the provisions of the 1975 Act. According to the provisions of the 1975 Act only the point of difference was to be referred to the third

member and the third member had to concentrate upon that point only. We find that the reference made to the third member is not in accordance

with the provisions of the 1975 Act. This defect could have been cured by the third member had he applied his mind. But he has heard the case

afresh in his own way and recorded findings against the appellant holding him guilty of both the two main charges. Thus the third member has

exceeded his jurisdiction while dealing with the case.

We have seen the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge seems to have been influenced by the findings of Mr.

L.D.Thakar which he has recorded while quoting the last para. It is true that in the last para Mr. L.D.Thakar has observed that the appellant also is

guilty for not having properly looked into the withdrawal of money from the treasury, as to where it had gone. But this observation will not vitiate

the clear cut findings recorded by Mr. Thakar on this point regarding which the relevant portions of his judgment have been quoted above. Mr.

Thakar is unequivocal terms has held that misappropriation of Rs. 9992.03 is not established against the appellant. He has recorded this finding not

only at one place, but at several different places in his judgment. Be that as it may, the observation made against the appellant in the last lines, while

summing up the findings, holding him also responsible for this charge cannot be taken into consideration in view of the definite findings recorded by

Mr. Thakar wherefrom it is established that this charge has not been proved against the appellant. The observations, as mentioned above, are in

quite contrast to the findings recorded regarding this charge, so these are not relevant in the matter.

Secondly, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the Governor has not recorded the satisfaction in accordance with the

requirements of law. Requirement of subsection (6) of Section 17 of the 1975 Act is that the Governor should satisfy himself about the occurrence

or otherwise of the findings and punishment proposed by the Tribunal. Under this provision of the law, the accused is required to be supplied with

copy of the report of the enquiry and called upon to show cause by a particular date why the proposed penalty should not be imposed upon him.

The word 'satisfaction' used in subsection (6) is of paramount importance. Requirement of law is that the Governor should peruse the whole record

of the case, apply his mind as to whether the finding is correct or not, give reasons for his satisfaction and then record his a satisfaction. The words

Correctness or otherwise of the findings"" used in this subsection carry a great weight. It is not to be taken in the ordinary course of things. Word

otherwise"" means that the Governor has to be satisfied whether finding is correct or not. For that purpose he has to record the reasons for his

satisfaction. The intention of the legislature in inserting the words ""correctness or otherwise of the findings"" is apparent that the Law Makers have

cast upon the Governor a duty not to deal with such cases in a cursory manner, but to apply his mind to the facts of the case and the findings

arrived at by the Tribunal . In 1962 Act these words did not find place but in the 1975 Act the Legislature has inserted these words only with

intention to cast upon the Governor a duty to apply his mind deeply and thoroughly before concurring with the findings or otherwise nof agreeing

therewith. In the present case, we have seen the notice which has been given to the appellant purportedly under subsection 6 of Section 17of the

1976 Act. It would be appropriate to quote the notice itself hereunder:

Government of Jammu and Kashmir

Civil SecttVigilance Department

No. OM(AC)76Comp/74

Dt. 17.03.1978.

Shri Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan,

Reserach Officer,

Disease Investigation Sheep and Goat, Srinagar.

Whereas an enquiry was held by the Anticorruption Tribunal constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1975 against you in respect of the charges of corruption communicated to you by the said Tribunal; and

Whereas on the basis of the enquiry and report of the aforesaid Tribunal the Governor has arrived at a provisional conclusion that you should be

removed from service of the State.

Now, therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this Notice by you why the

proposed punishment be not imposed upon you.

Copies of the report of enquiry of the AntiCorruption Tribunal is enclosed.

By order of the Governor.

Sd/

(I.D Sharma) Secretary to Government Home Department

(Vigilance).

It is crystal clear from this notice, the Governor has nowwhere stated that he has satisfied himself about the correctness or otherwise of the

findings. The words ""provisional conclusion"" used by the Governor in the notice do not fulfill the mandate of law. There is not a whisper in this

notice, nor any record has been shown to us, wherefrom it could be gathered that the Governor has applied his mind and has satisfied himself

regarding the findings of the Tribunal. It was incumbent upon the respondents to include in this notice the reasons for satisfaction of the Governor

so as to enable the appellant to give an effective reply to the show cause notice. In the present case it was all the more essential for the Governor

to record the reasons for his satisfaction with regard to the findings, because there was a difference of opinion between the Chairman and the

Member and the case had been referred to the third Member. This matter could not have been taken lightly by the Governor to go through the

findings of all the three Members and to go through the point referred to the third Member and to record the reasons for his satisfaction.

This point has come up before a Single Bench of this court earlier in SWP No. 488/82, ""Dr. Inder Prem Gupta versus State of J and K (SLJ

Vol. (14) J and K page 105)"". The Single Bench has dealt with this point and has come to the conclusion that Section 17(6) of the 1975 Act

required the Governor to satisfy himself regarding the correctness or otherwise of the finding and the punishment proposed by the Tribunal. The

Show Cause Notice must indicate that the Governor had reached the requisite satisfaction, otherwise the inference would be that he had

proceeded mechanically.

We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with this point at all, though

being a very vital point.

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the whole procedure adopted by the Tribunal has seriously prejudiced the

appellant. We are convinced by this argument. Had only the point of difference been referred to the third Member regarding the misappropriation

of 100 grams of Gridley stain and 6 Nos. of Kipps apparatus, the third member might have recommended a lighter punishment against the

appellant. Similarly, had the Governor not dealt with the matter mechanically; had he applied his mind, gone through the record, he might have

found that the appellant is exonerated from the charge of misappropriating Rs. 9992.03. He might have been influenced by the fact that all the three

Members, who have dealt with the case,have given definite findings that other persons, namely, Ghulam Rasool Reshi, R.L.Bhat, Nazir Ahmad as

also the proprietor of Dwarika Nath and Sons, all are involved in this episode more seriously than the appellant and all the three Members have

recommended that they be prosecuted, but all these employees are in service, enjoying all the benefits of service and, above all, all these persons

have appeared as prosecution witnesses against the appellant. It is just possible that the Governor might have imposed a lesser punishment than the

appellant's termination. So the manner and the method in which the case has been dealt with throughout, from the stage of reference upto the

termination of the appellant, has certainly and without any iota of doubt seriously prejudiced the interests of the appellant which is all against the

cardinal principles of justice.

The last two points raised before regarding how much reliance is to be placed on the evidence of an accomplice and not appreciating the

defence evidence properly need not be gone into because we are not dealing with the case as an appellate forum under the Act. In writ jurisdiction

these points cannot be looked into, nor these points require to be adjudicated upon in view of the conclusions drawn by us with regard to the first

two points.

To sum up, we hold that the proceedings in this case have not been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the 1975 Act. Point of

difference between the two Members alone had to be referred to the third Member, which has not been done. The third Member has reopened

the whole case and recorded his findings on all the articles of charge which is against the mandate of law. The Show Cause Notice issued to the

appellant is berefit of reasons and the requisite satisfaction of the Governor, and the inference, therefore, is that the Governor has mechanically

proceeded with the case. For these reasons, therefore, we are convinced that the writ court has erred in dismissing the writ petition of the

appellant.

While allowing this appeal, therefore, we setaside the impugned judgment dated 21.11.1980. We also allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner

and quash Order No. 27GRVIF of 1979 dated 20.8.1979 passed by the respondents, whereby the appellant's service were terminated. The

appellant shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

No order as to costs.