(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to pass the order for removal of the respondents, who were employed as Lekhpals.
(2.) The three respondents in these appeals were appointed as Lekhpals in the year 1953. By orders dated 29/8/1973 and 9/4/1974 they were removed from service. The said removal was by way of punishment after conducting an inquiry into the charges levelled against them. They filed claims before the U. P. Public Services tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") wherein they challenged the orders of removal on the ground that they had been appointed by the Collector and the order of removal having been passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was null and void being violative of Article 311 (1 of the Constitution. The said claims of the respondents were dismissed by the tribunal on the view that the appointing authority in the matter of appointment of the Lekhpals is the Sub Divisional Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the tribunal the respondents filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High court which have been allowed by the impugned judgment of the High court dated 20/4/1988.
(3.) The case of the respondents before the High court was that they had been appointed by the Collector and that at the time of appointment no orders of appointment were given to them and that before the tribunal they had asked the State government to produce the original record regarding their appointment but the said had not been produced. According to the High court it was the duty of the State government to produce the relevant record, especially when the case of the respondents was that no appointment letter was issued to them and that the appointments were made by the Collector by issuance of three lists. The High court has held that the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 which were issued vide notification dated 9/5/1958 could have no bearing on the appointment of the respondents which was made prior to these rules and that it was for the State government to show that prior to the said Rules the appointing authority of the respondents was the Sub-Divisional Officer. The High court rejected the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the appointment of the respondents was made under the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (3 of 1901 and that the Assistant Collector was the appointing authority at that time. The High court has observed that the learned Standing Counsel had fairly contended that there was nothing under the Land Revenue Act which stipulates the appointment of the Lekhpals by the Assistant Collector. Thehigh court has accepted the contention urged by the respondents that they had been appointed by the Collector and that the order of removal passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, was violative of Article 311 (1 of the Constitution.