BRIJ NANDAN KANSAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated August 7, 1974 allowing the respondent's Letters Patent appeal and setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and dismissing the appellant's writ petition made under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government dated April 24, 1972 dismissing the appellant from the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch).

(2.) The appellant was in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a member of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch). He was posted as Regional Transport Magistrate at Bareilly between June, 1962 to October, 1964. A number of charges were framed against the appellant and the State Government referred the matter to the U.P. Administrative Tribunal constituted under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for enquiry into those charges. The Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties submitted its findings to the State Government on 27th May, 1970. Out of six charges framed against the appellant the Tribunal recorded the finding that the first charge was not proved but it recorded findings against the appellant in respect of the remaining five charges. The Governor issued show case notice to the appellant on July 29, 1970 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The notice was accompanied with a copy of the findings of the Tribunal. The appellant submitted a detailed reply making comments on the findings recorded by the Tribunal on each of the charges. The appellant submitted that there was no evidence to support the charges and the findings recorded by the Tribunal were not sustainable. On receipt of the appellant's reply to the show cause notice the Governor referred the same to the Tribunal in accordance with R. 10(2) of the Rules. The Tribunal considered the appellant's reply to the show cause notice and his comments on the findings recorded by it earlier on the charges and thereupon it submitted a detailed findings to the Governor on 7-7-1971. In that report the Tribunal on a detailed analysis of the evidence recorded the finding that there was no convincing evidence to uphold the charges framed against the appellant. On receipt of the report of the Tribunal the State Government appears to have referred the matter to the Legal Remembrancer for his opinion. The Legal Remembrancer disagreed with the findings recorded by the Tribunal by his report dated July 7, 1971 and he opined that there was sufficient evidence on record to uphold the charges 2 to 5 against the appellant. In view of the opinion submitted by the Legal Remembrancer the Governor disregarded the findings recorded by the Tribunal and issued the impugned order dated April 24, 1972 dismissing the appellant from service.

(3.) The appellant preferred a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Allahabad challenging the order of dismissal on a number of grounds. C.S.P. Singh J. allowed the writ petition by his order dated January 10, 1974 and quashed the order of dismissal. The Respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh preferred letters patent appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench by its order dated August 7, 1984 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge holding that the appellant had been given reasonable opportunity of defence and there was ample evidence to sustain the charges and the order of dismissal did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Hence this appeal.