Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

JUDGMENT AIR 1962 SC 1344 The Judgment was delivered by SHAH, J Per Shah, J Major U. R. Bhatt, who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant was appointed Senior Inspector (Fruit Products) in the Central Agricultural Marketing Department of the Government of India on 9 April 1946. The appellant was initially employed on probation for six months and his appointment was liable to be terminated without notice during probation and thereafter, by notice of there months' duration on either side. The appellant continued to work as senior inspector till 17 March 1947. He was then served with a charge-sheet and called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed or remove from service or otherwise punished. The appellant submitted his written statement on 22 March 1947. On 25 March 1947, he appeared before the Joint Secretary of the Agricultural Department and he was heard in persons. The Joint Secretary made a report recommending that the appellant's employment be terminated according to the terms of the contract by giving him notice. The Minister in charge of the portfolio concerned, however, directed an enquiry after framing fresh charges against the appellant and that in the meanwhile, he be suspended. On 7 May 1947, another chargesheet was served upon the appellant. By that charge-sheet, he was charged with irresponsibility and insubordination and accordingly unfit to hold the post of senior inspector. The appellant submitted a reply to the charges. The case was then posted for hearing on 9 June 1947 before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, who was appointed the enquiry officer. On that day, Sardar Bahadur Lal Singh, the Fruit Development Adviser, was present at the hearing and was examined. The appellant objected to the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in using marginal notes made by Sardar Bahadur Lal Singh on the representation made by the appellant. The case then stood adjourned to 10 June 1947. On that day, the appellant met the enquiry officer and intimated that he (the appellant) would not take further part in the proceeding, and promised the enquiry officer to send a letter explaining his reasons for withdrawing from the proceeding. The proceeding was then adjourned till 13 June. The promised letter of the appellant was received on 11 June. The enquiry officer then submitted his report holding that the charges incorporated in the charge- sheet were submitted his report holding that the charges incorporated in the charge-sheet were substantially proved by the evidence on the record. Holding that the appellant was "irresponsible, insubordinate and unreliable, and as such unfit to be kept in the post of the senior inspector,"