SYED JAMIL AHMED Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal, dated March 26, 1981 passed against him, contained in Annexure xxiv, mainly on the following grounds

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Principal of the Industrial Training institute, Pratapgarh with effect from December 28, 1962 and his appointment was approved by the Public Service Commission in- Class II during 1964-65. Thereafter he worked as the Principal of Industrial Training institute, Meerut in July, 1965 and was recruited to the State training service 'class I after approval by U. ' P. Public Service Commission on january 21, 1966. In 1966 a piston set was urgently required for a Diesel tractor belonging to the institute. In (accordance with the procedure prescribed, tenders were invited for an English Piston. Quotations - were received, and after preparing a comparative chart the tender of M /s. A. V. Sales Corporation for Rs. 781/- was found lowest and this was accepted. On an anonymous complaint a charge-sheet containing three charges was communicated to the petitioner on September 30, 1972 by the administrative Tribunal (II) created under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. These charges relate to the period when the petitioner was working as Principal, Industrial Training institute, Meerut. Subsequently, three more charges were framed by the department. While the proceedings were pending before the Administrative Tribunal a third charge-sheet was communicated bo the petitioner vide letter, dated July 24, 1973. It was averred that the first three items of the third charge-sheet were identical to charge No. 3 communicated in the first charge-sheet. Only item Nos. 4 and 5 have been newly added and the petitioner was found guilty and - removed only on charge No. 1 (v) of the third charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted replies to all these charges. One Brij Vir Singh was also co-accused in inquiry before the Administrative Tribunal. The prosecution indicated nine witnesses to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. None of the witnesses had deposed against the petitioner except Brij Vir Singh who was on inimical terms with the petitioner and was also co-accused along with the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice in which the petitioner was required to submit his explanation only with regard to charge No. 1 (v) of the third charge-sheet. One of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the first charge-sheet which is relevant for the purpose, is charge No. 3. The said charge reads as under :

(3.) THE charge on which the removal order was passed against the petitioner given in the third charge-sheet, that is charge No. 1 (v), reads as under