MUMTAZ HUSSAIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19-8-1974 dismissing in limine Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4827 of 1974 which had been filed by the appellant, for quashing the first respondent's order dated 3-5-1974 removing him from service pursuant to the finding of the second respondent. U. P. Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow dated 10-7-1972 that the appellant was guilty of three of the four charges framed against him The appellant was employed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit at the relevant time. The fourth charge of which the appellant has been exonerated was that he had transferred his Vespa Scooter bearing Registration No. UPI-9117 and valued at more than Rs. 500/- to one Lal Mohd. without obtaining the previous sanction of the appropriate authority and -he thereby contravened Rule 24(2) of the U. P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956. The appellant's defence was that the transfer was effected through a reputed dealer and therefore previous sanction of the appropriate authority was not necessary. The Tribunal found that the transaction of sale of the scooter by the appellant to Lal Mohd. was effected through M/s. Anand Agencies, automobile engineers and reputed dealers. in scooters and therefore there was sufficient compliance with Rule 24(2).

(2.) Charges 1 to 3 were more serious ones. The substance of the first charge was that the appellant while posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit was granted 30 days leave with effect from 11-11-1967 and had to resume his duties on 10-12-1967 but failed to resume his duties and absented himself without previous permission or intimation to the Superintendent of Police and without good or sufficient cause. He failed to report about his whereabouts until an application was made-by him On 24-4-1968 for extension of the leave. The appellant's defence was that he suffered from an attack of a mental disease, melancholia and was under the treatment of Dr. Mukerji at Calcutta from 1-12-1967 to 20-4-1968 and he had informed about his sudden illness and had applied for extension of the leave directly and also through his wife and he had furnished his leave address when he proceeded on 30 days leave. The substance of the second charge was that while applying for extension of leave on 20-4-1968 he attempted to wilfully deceive the Inspector General of Police by attempting to make him believe that he had been ill from 1-12-1967 to 20-4-1968 and was under treatment of a doctor at Calcutta although in fact he had been to Pakistan during the period and had obtained a medical certificate through deceitful and fraudulent means. The defence of the appellant was one of denial. He reiterated that he was under treatment of Dr. Mukerji at Calcutta from 1-12-1967 to 20-4-1968 and contended that in that period he was treated by Dr. Das at Howrah from 10-1-1968 to 30-1-1968 for injuries to his nose. The substance of the third charge was that after having proceeded on leave with effect from 11-11-1967 he unauthorisedly and unlawfully visited Karachi in Pakistan sometime between 22-11-1967 and 20-4-1968 without any valid. passport or travel document and he thereby contravened, Section 3 of the Passport Act, 1967. The appellant denied the charge and contended that he had never visited Karachi and had been suffering from melancholia and treated by Dr. Mukerji at Calcutta,

(3.) A number of witnesses for the department and some witnesses for the defence were examined before the Tribunal which after considering the oral and documentary evidence found charges 1 to 3 against the appellant. One Harish Kumar, Superintendent of Police who was appointed as an assessor in the inquiry conducted before the Tribunal, agreed with the findings of the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Tribunal submitted copies of its findings to the Government with its recommendation that the appellant may be dismissed from service. The Governor accepted the Tribunal's findings took a tentative decision to dismiss the appellant from service, and issued a second show-cause notice dated 29-9-1972 to him. The appellant submitted his Interim reply and final reply on 19-11-1972 and 31-3-1973 respectively. After considering the appellant's replies the Governor agreed with the Tribunal that the charges I to 3 are fully established against the appellant and ordered his removal from service by the Order dated 1-8-1974.