DINA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Dina Nath Pandey has challenged the order dated 31st January, 1973 (Annexure - 9) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur and the order dated 7th August, 1973 (Annexure-11) passed by the Collector, Mirzapur dismissing the petitioner's appeal, the order dated 11th June, 1974 (Annexure-12) passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division dismissing the petitioner's revision application and the order dated 4th December, 1981 (Annexure-13) passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal-(1), Lucknow dismissing the claim application filed by the petitioner against the order terminating his service.

(2.) Facts of the case may be briefly stated. The petitioner was working as a Lekhpal at village Baraudi in tehsil Mirzapur. He was a permanent Government servant. On 19th October, 1972 a charge-sheet (Annexure-1) was served upon him asking him to show cause against five charges noted in the charge-sheet. He submitted his explanation (Annexure-3) on 18th November, 1972. At the conclusion of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner be was found guilty of all the five charges vide Annexure-7. Thereafter a second notice (Annexure-6) was served on the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from service. The explanation of the petitioner to the second show cause notice is Annexure 7A dated 23rd January, 1973. Finally by order dated 31st January, 1973, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur removed the petitioner from service vide Annexure-9. The petitioner's appeal to the Collector, Mirzapur was dismissed by order dated 7th August, 1973 (Annexure-11). The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division which was also dismissed by order dated 11th June, 1974 (Annexure-12). The petitioner next filed a claim petition before Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal and the claim petition was dismissed by order of the Tribunal dated 4th December, 1981 (Annexure-13)

(3.) Mr.B.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged two main points in support of the petitioner's case. The first point is that the petitioner had not been given adequate opportunity to produce witnnesses, particularly his father-in-law, in support of his plea that the lands in question which were standing in the name of the petitioner's wife had been gifted to her by his father-in-law. This submission of learned Counsel overlooks the contents of the order dated 24th January, 1973, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, wherein it has been clearly recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer that on 28th November, 1972 the petitioner had given in writing that except what he had stated in his explanation, he had no further oral submissions to make nor any witnesses to examine in support of his case. In view of the clear observations of the Sub Divisional Officer as contained in his aforesaid order, it is not now open to the petitioner to complain of denial of adequate opportunity to produce and examine witnesses in support of his case.