STATE OF U. P. Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents were removed from the Commission by the order dated 27.6.1997 passed by the State Government exercising powers u/s. 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 ("the Act" for short) read with the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997. They questioned the validity and correctness of the said order before the High Court by filing the writ petition. The High Court, on examination of the contentions raised in the light of the facts, circumstances and material placed before it, concluded that the respondents could not be removed from their office as they did not commit any act of misconduct; mere disobedience of any direction given by the Government could not be made a ground to remove them from the office exercising powers u/s. 6 of the Act. This apart, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State made a categorical statement before the High Court that Sec. 6 of the Act was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The High Court in the impugned order has recorded thus:

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 had retired on the date when the High Court passed the impugned order. Respondent 1 retired a few days later i.e. on 14-9-1998. Taking note of this fact also, the High Court allowed the writ petition and granted relief to the respondents as stated in the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the High Court committed an error in granting relief to the respondents, as is done in the impugned order; when the respondents deliberately disobeyed the specific direction given by the State Government, they were unfit to continue as members of the Commission; the State Government had ample power to pass the order u/s. 6 of the Act read with the amending Ordinance referred to above. According to the learned counsel, disobedience of the direction given by the Government itself amounted to misconduct.