1. This is a rule obtained by Fyara Singh Mulla, who was at one time a Senior Clerk in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, for a writ of 'certiorari' and for a mandamus to quash the orders of the Punjab Government dismissing the petitioner and tor a direction to reinstate the petitioner.
2. Pyara Singh Mulla was appointed a Senior Clerk on 5-10-1948 and on 30-7-1952 he was suspended by an order of Mr. Nawab Singh Chief Secretary of the Punjab Government and on the same day he was given a charge-sheet to put in his defence in regard to two matters -- (1) that he shouted at the Chief Secretary saying that he did not care for him, and (2) abused him filthily in public outside the Secretariat merely because he had been pulled up by the Chief Secretary for making a speech. Mr. Gian Singh Kahlon, the Home Secretary, was appointed the officer tit make the necessary enquiry under the rules.
3. In support of one of the charges one Amar Chand, an Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat, and on the other charge five witnesses were examined and then the petitioner was called uponto enter on his defence. The explanation which the petitioner had given is Annexure 'B' and the least I can say is that the language used is unworthy of a Government servant. It appears that the petitioner on 19-8-1952 made an application for appearing with and through a pleader, but this was turned down at that stage as well as previously when an oral application was made.
4. For the defence the petitioner wanted to examine 126 witnesses. Five of them were examined and the rest 121 gave a written statement, a joint one. The parties are not in accord on the question whether the enquiring officer asked a joint written statement to be filed by these 121 persons or it was the petitioner who did it, but the fact remains that that is what was done and when the report of the enquiring officer went to Mr. Nawab Singh he rightly pointed out that these persons should have been examined in person if the petitioner so desired. The petitioner was then given an opportunity by an order dated 12-8-1952, but the petitioner filed an application (Annexure 'C') and did not produce any witnesses.
5. Reports were made by Mr. Kahlon dated12-8-1952 and 19-8-1952. They are Annexures'D' and 'E', and the petitioner was called upon toshow cause why he should not be dismissed. Inreply to this he filed an explanation which isAnnexure 'P' in which he accused Mr. Kahlon ofdishonesty and every kind of corruption whichan enquiry officer can be guilty of and otherwisetoo the language used is most intemperate. Hewas thereupon dismissed on 4-10-1952.
6. In the forefront of his arguments Mr. Hira Lal Sibal has put the objection in regard to the discriminatory nature of the enquiry allowed by the rules. He submits that enquiries can be made under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and under the Rules made for subordinate services. I do not think that that is any kind of discrimination because the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act is the Central Act and applies to those servants who are liable to dismissal with the sanction of the Government, and the Rules made for subordinate services are those which are made for another class of people and this is, in my opinion, a reasonable classification. Objection is then taken to the power of the Government to appoint anyone they like for the purpose of the enquiry, but I cannot see how that comes under Article 14, of the Constitution. After all the appointment of a person to carry out a particular function is in the discretion of the Government and they have to appoint someone whom they deem most fitted for the purpose.
7. Under Article 310, Constitution of India all servants of a State held office at the pleasure of the Governor and but for Article 311 the only remedy open to a dismissed servant would be a political one as was pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in -- 'R. Venkata Rao v. Secy. of State', AIR 1937 PC 31 (A), where it was held that terms of a section containing a statutory and solemn assurance that the service, though at pleasure, will not be subject to capricious or arbitrary action and will be regulated by rule do not import a special kind of employment with an added contractual term that the rules are to be observed. Their Lordships said at p. 34:
'But while thus holding on the clear facts of this case, as they now appear from the evidence, as they similarly held in -- 'R.T. Rangachari v. Secy. of State', AIR 1937 PC 27 (B), their Lordships are unable as a matter of law to hold that redress is obtainable from the Courts by action. To give redress is the responsibility, and their Lordships can only trust will be the pleasure, of the Executive Government.'
And in this case their Lordships followed other cases and particularly -- 'Shenton v. Smith', 1895 AC 229 (C), and -- 'Could v. Stuart', 1896 AC 575 (D).
8. However, the difference was made in regard to the powers of the Crown and now the powers of the Governor by Section 240(3), Government of India Act and Article 311, Constitution of India respectively which both require that before a person can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, and this was pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in-- 'High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lair, AIR 1948 PC 121 (E), and by the Supreme Court in -- 'Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh', AIR 1954 SC 369 at page 374 (F).
Therefore as a result of the introduction of Section 240(3) and of Article 311, Government of India Act and Constitution of India respectively the powers of the Crown and the Governor have been cut down to this extent that before a man is dismissed he is to have an opportunity of showing cause. The Governments have made Rules-- the Central Government under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the Punjab Government under the various Rules made for its higher services as well as for subordinate services as to what enquiry should be held before a person can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank.
In the present case in my opinion there has been no contravent inn of the Rules. A charge-sheet as required under Rule 6 of the Subordinate Services Rules was framed. The petitioner was asked to put in his explanation if he wanted to and he did. Certain witnesses were then examined in support of the charges framed and the petitioner was then called upon to enter on his defence which he did and he has had as fair an enquiry as could in the circumstances be possible and nothing that has been urged before me proves that the enquiry was in any way unfair and opportunity given to the petitioner unreasonable.
9. The function of this Court is not to sit in appeal on the enquiries held by Governments or their officers. Under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India this Court has only a supervisory function and its powers are confined to canalising the acts of the enquiring officers. In this particular case I do not think there has been anyoverflowing of the banks end I would therefore dismiss this petition. Counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner is much too poor andhe is already in jail and in spite of the oppositionby the counsel for the State I order that the parties will bear their own costs in this Court.