RADHEY SHYAM GAUTAM RAM DAYAL Vs. UTTAR PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sri Radhey Shyam Gautam, seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Z.A.C. Clerk in Tahsil Khair, district Aligarh on 10th February, 1954. He was subsequently appointed as Naib Nazir in Tahsil Khair where he served upto 17th July, 1972. He was transferred on the same post from Tahsil Khair to Tahsil Atrauli on 17th July, 1972. The petitioner was, however, placed under suspension vide order dated 24th November, 1972. Two first information reports dated 19th December, 1972 and 30th January, 1973 were also lodged against the petitioner for alleged embezzlement. The petitioner was charge sheeted and tried in Criminal Case Nos. 271 of 1979 and 272 of 1979. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was served with a charge sheet on 10th March, 1973 wherein eleven charges have been levelled against him. According to the petitioner, he made an application before the Enquiry Officer to stay the departmental proceedings till the decision of the criminal cases filed against him, as the disclosure of the defence by the petitioner in reply to the charge sheet would seriously prejudice the petitioner in the criminal cases and as in substance the charges against the petitioner were the same as were the allegations made in the F.I.Rs. The application was, however, rejected by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner thereafter gave two applications to the Enquiry Officer praying that he be supplied the documents which were mentioned as evidence in support of the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet and he be permitted to inspect certain original records so as to enable him to give a complete reply to the charge sheet. According to the petitioner, he was neither supplied the copies of the documents nor the records were shown to him by the Enquiry Officer. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the then Sub Divisional Officer, Khair was prejudiced against him as he was instrumental in the transfer of the petitioner upto the filing of criminal cases and the submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and getting himself appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner made an application before the Collector, Aligarh for changing the Enquiry Officer and the Collector vide order dated 17th April, 1973 appointed Sub-Divisional Officer, Atrauli as new Enquiry Officer. The new Enquiry Officer allowed the inspection of some records but, according to the petitioner, records mentioned at serial Nos. 7, 12 and 15 were not allowed to be inspected, which were very relevant and on the basis of which the prosecution was launched. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 7th September, 1973. Acting on the basis of the said report, the Collector, Aligarh vide order dated 21th September, 1973 directed for issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why he be not removed from the services. The show cause notice was issued on 10th October, 1973. It is alleged by the petitioner that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not sent along with the show cause notice. The petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notice by filing a writ petition before this Court, being Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 7758 of 1973, which was dismissed vide order dated 30th April, 1974 as premature. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner once again applied for stay of the departmental proceedings against him before the Collector, Aligarh as the criminal cases on the same charges were going on against him but the said request was not accepted. He moved an application on 31st March, 1975 before the Collector, Aligarh to supply him the relevant documents relied upon as evidence in support of the charges and also to permit him to inspect the records which had not been allowed to be inspected by the Enquiry Officer. The Collector, Aligarh had rejected the said application and vide order dated 25th April, 1975 passed an order of punishment of dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, who vide order dated 13th April, 1978 had dismissed the appeal. The petitioner was acquitted in criminal cases by two separate judgments and orders dated 22nd December, 1979 whereupon the petitioner filed two separate applications before the Collector, Aligarh and the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra to review their decisions in the light of the acquittal recorded in the criminal cases. The Collector, Aligarh vide orders dated 7th May, 1981 had rejected the review application. Thereafter the petitioner preferred the claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow being Claim Petition No. 381(I)/1981. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.12.1984 had dismissed the claim petition. The order of dismissal from service as passed by the Collector, Aligarh and confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and the order dated 12.12.1984 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition are under challenge in the present petition on the grounds:

(3.) We have heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.