DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of U. P. was placed under suspension on 27-4-1971 in consequence of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in respect of certain acts and omissions committed by him during the period between January 1963 and April 1965 while he was posted at Kalagarh, district Bijnor in the Camp Management Division of Ramganga Project. This suspension was followed by an enquiry proceeding against the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) constituted under the Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). On a finding submitted by the Tribunal, a notice dated 27-4-1971 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 10 (1) of the Rules to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. THE finding of the Tribunal as well as the notice issued to the petitioner on the basis of this finding suffered from infirmities inasmuch as the finding of the Tribunal did not take into account the views of the assessor and the notice was not accompanied by a finding containing the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding punishment proposed in that finding. This notice was followed by an order dated 6-1-1973 dismissing the petitioner from service. THE petitioner then challenged this order of dismissal by means of a writ petition (No. 1805 of 1973). This writ petition was allowed on 3-12-1976 and the aforesaid order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed not on merits but on the abovementioned two technical grounds, namely, (1) the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding penalty was not communicated to him which had introduced an infirmity in the enquiry proceedings itself and (2) the proceedings of the Tribunal were not complete when it had submitted its finding to the State inasmuch as the assessors had not given their views till then and that finding was submitted by the Tribunal without having considered the views of the assessors in manifest disregard of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules.

(2.) ON 31-12-1977, the State Government under Rule 49 (A) (4) of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules decided to hold fresh enquiry into the charges against the petitioner by placing him under suspension with effect from 6-1-1973 onwards. A notice dated 15-2-1978 was served on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. With this notice complete finding of the Tribunal dated 6-1-1971 was also enclosed. The petitioner sent a reply dated 21-8-1978 to this show-cause notice. It transpires that subsequent to the issue of show-cause notice dated 15-2-1978, the Government took a decision to refer the matter again to the Tribunal for enquiry and report. The petitioner then filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire proceedings pending against him.

(3.) ON receipt of a reference from the Governor under Rule 4 of the Rules, the Tribunal commences disciplinary proceedings against the charged officer for enquiring into the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges levelled against him. The Tribunal then records a finding only after the enquiry proceedings are completed. As is clear from the language of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, the enquiry before the Tribunal comes to an end only after it records its findings after the completion of the proceedings. Rule 9 (1) of the Rules reads as under :-