A.H. Khan, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Charan Pal Singh son of Baldeo Singh alleging that the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the Agriculture Department in the State of Madhya Bharat, that he was suspended on 7-4-1953 and as a result of an enquiry conducted by the Collector, Bhilsa, he was first dismissed on 8-5-1953. But on 11-5-1953, the order of dismissal was withdrawn and he was reinstated. Subsequent to this, another enquiry was held against him and the Director of Agriculture on the basis of the report of enquiry, issued a notice to him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. After he had furnished his explanation to the Director of Agriculture, he was dismissed on 17-11-1953. Against this order of removal he filed an appeal before the Government of Madhya Bharat, but that too was dismissed on 20-1-1956.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions :
First, that the Collector was not competent to suspend him;
Two, that the Collector, Bhilsa, who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner did not consider the Audit Note, nor the record of files to which he had referred in his defence and that they were not also considered by the Director of Agriculture.
Three, that in the show-cause notice, four grounds were shown on which the order of dismissal was proposed, but in the order of dismissal of 17-11-1953, the Director of Agriculture added a fifth ground about which neither an enquiry was held nor was it mentioned in the show cause notice.
With regard to the first submission, I find that it has not been raised in the writ-petition. Nor was it pressed in the appeal filed before the Government against the order of dismissal passed by the Director of Agriculture. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider it at this stage.
With regard to the second submission, in the Return filed by the Government, the allegation is denied. In the Return it has been submitted that all the material before the authorities was considered. In the circumstances there is no substance in the contention that the authorities before passing the necessary order did not consider the record.
2. Regarding the third submission it seems to be correct. In the Return it is said that the Director of Agriculture only casually mentioned ground number five, but that the order of removal is based on the four grounds stated in the show-cause notice.
3. The learned Government Advocate contends that the order of dismissal is really based on the four grounds that were mentioned in the show-cause notice of removal. And he concedes, and very rightly so that ground number five was unwittingly introduced by the Director of Agriculture. The question to be considered in the circumstances is whether the addition of ground number five invalidates the order of dismissal.
4. The learned Government Advocate has referred me to a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court, AIR 1956 Pat 228, Karamdeo Singh v. State of Bihar, in which it is held that the failure to give notice of the proposed action with respect to the additional charge could not invalidate the order of dismissal. I find myself in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Patna High Court.
5. My reason for doing so is that at the lime of giving show cause notice of the proposed dismissal, the authority concerned did not have the additional ground, namely, the fifth ground, before him. The fifth ground consisted of further information that was supplied by the Collector. The authority concerned, in the absence of the fifth ground, had already made up its mind and provisionally proposed to pass an order of dismissal on the four grounds included in show-cause notice. The four grounds, notice of which was given to the petitioner, were in his opinion enough to persuade the authority to dismiss the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the additional charge really is not the basis of dismissal and it can therefore be ignored. The additional ground would not invalidate an order of removal, if the order really rests upon other grounds that have been enquired into and proved to be correct.
6. After going through the record. I am satisfied that the petitioner has been afforded two opportunities. Before his dismissal the first opportunity was at the enquiry which was held by the Collector and in which he participated. And the second opportunity was when he was given a show cause notice and the proposed order of dismissal by the Director of Agriculture was conveyed to him. Thus there has been no violation of Article 311 of the Constitution.
7. For reasons stated above the petition is dismissed and having regard to the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.