BHAGWAT CHARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner was a confirmed Collector Amdin. In the year 1963 four complaints of embezzlement were received against him. By an order dated April 18, 1963, he was suspended. The very next day, i.e., on April 19,1963, a first information report was lodged against him. After enquiry the case was sent, to court and ultimately on Sept. 18,1964, the petitioner was committed to the court of sessions to stand his trial. It may be mentioned that two cases were committed, one in respect of three charges and the other in respect of two. In the meantime the departmental proceedings were also started against the petitioner. On May 8, 1963, a charge sheet was served on him and after enquiry the Enquiry Officer by his report dated May 30, 1964, held him guilty of the charges. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner on Aug. 11, 1964, served a notice on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the petitioner's explanation the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated Sept. 30, 1964, dismissed the petitioner from service. Against the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on Dec. 14, 1965. The petitioner then preferred a revision to the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the revision the two sessions trials against the petitioner started. By two judgements dated March 23,1966 and March 31, 1966, the petitioner was acquitted in both the trials. Thereupon the petitioner applied to the Board of Revenue to consider his revision in the light of the judgement of the Session Judge acquitting him of the same charges. By a communication dated Aug. 8, 1967, the petitioner was informed:-

(2.) It appears that the Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Assistant Sub-divisional Officer, Balrampur. The Assistant Sub Divisional Officer on Dec. 28, 1967, without hearing the petitioner, recommended that in view of the petitioner's acquittal by the Sessions Court no action was needed against the petitioner. The matter was then considered by the Deputy commissioner and by his order dated Feb. 6,1968, he awarded the punishment or removal from service to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but the appeal was withheld on Jan. 31,1969, by the Commissioner, as it was addressed to the State Government. The petitioner then made a representation, but nothing seems to have come out of it. He then filed this writ petition.

(3.) Having heard Counsel for the parties at length I am of the opinion that this writ petition must succeed on two grounds.