STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. JOGENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of R. 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the Rules). That question arms in this way. The respondent Jogendra Singh was appointed a Naib Tehsildar under the appellant, the State of U.P. in the year 1937. On August 4, 1952, he was suspended as complaints had been received against him and an enquiry into the said complaints was contemplated. Accordingly, charges were framed against him and his case was referred for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal appointed under the Rules. The Tribunal held an enquiry and exonerated the respondent from the charges framed against him, in August 1953.

(2.) While the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending, additional complaints were received by the appellant against the respondent's conduct, and they were communicated by the appellant to the Tribunal with an intimation that the appellant proposed to send those further charges against the respondent for enquiry. The Tribunal did not wait for receipt of the said additional charges because it was asked by the Government to proceed with the charge already with it and concluded its enquiry. That is why on October 28, 1955 the respondent was again suspended and charges framed on the additional complaints received against him were delivered to him on October 29, 1956. On November 12, 1956 the respondent submitted his explanation and pleaded that in case the appellant wanted to pursue the enquiry against him, it might be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Rules.

(3.) On June 28, l958, the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P., informed the respondent that in accordance with the orders passed by the appellant his case had been entrusted to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division with directions to take disciplinary proceeding against him, and his request that the charges against hurt should be entrusted for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal had been rejected.