SHEO KRIPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner after having served some time under the Madhya Pradesh Government joined the Industries Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a typist in 1962. There after he was selected as a Senior Clerk-cum-Accountant in the Home Guards Department, Banda which post he joined on October 31, 3964. It appears that a sum of Rs. 447.30 was drawn for disbursement to certain Home Guards as Travelling Allowance. The petitioner says that he handed over the amount to one Sri Deoraj Sharma, Company Commander, who duly disbursed it to the Home Guards concerned after obtaining their signature on the acquaintance roll. According to the respondents, actually no disbursement was made to the Home Guards and the acquaintance roll was a Farzi document. In due course, it was established that the entries in the acquaintance roll and the dis bursement certificate of the company commander were in the hand writing of the petitioner and he was considered to be accomplice in the embezzlement. The District Staff Officer accordingly lodged a report with the police under Section 409, I.P.C. against the peti tioner in respect of the embezzlement of Us. 447.30. While the en quiry by the police was still pending, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and the first respondent,, the District Magistrate, Banda, put the petitioner under suspension with the fol lowing recital in the suspension order:

(2.) THE third respondent, Sri V. Singh, the District Staff Officer, Home Guards, Banda, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The peti tioner protested against the appointment of Sri V. Singh as the En quiry Officer, as he was the person who had lodged the complaint against him with the police. However, the District Magistrate did not pass any order on his application and the disciplinary proceed ings were started. Soon afterwards on January 22, 1971 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner submit ted a reply on January 27, 1971. On April 16, 1971 the petitioner was reinstated and on the same day he was served with an order terminating his services. This order is dated April 9, 1971. The peti tioner has challenged this order in this writ petition.

(3.) IT is now well settled that the protection contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is available as such to a temporary gov ernment servant as to a permanent government servant and this Court would readily grant relief to a temporary government servant if his services have been terminated in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. The impugned order is in the following words: