BHOLA RAM MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILIP Gupta, J. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Ashram type school in the year 1969 and was subsequently promoted in JTC/ct grade with effect from 3rd February, 1972. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who was also suspended by the order dated 20th April, 1985. The petitioner challenged this suspension order before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 560 of 1985. By the order dated 30th May, 1994 the Claim Petition was allowed and the suspension order dated 20th April, 1985 was set aside. It was further ordered that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner may continue and should be completed expeditiously in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petitioner had been served with a charge-sheet dated 16th January, 1986. THE inquiry was completed by the District Harijan Social Welfare Officer, who submitted the report dated 18th September, 1986. It, however, transpires that when the inquiry report was placed before the Director, Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, he ordered that the inquiry be conducted by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. THE said Deputy Director thereafter submitted the report dated 24th June, 1996 to the Director, Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow merely mentioning that the earlier inquiry report was correct and she agreed with it. THE petitioner was thereafter issued a show- cause notice dated 19th July, 1996 by the Director, Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh enclosing a copy of the inquiry report and the petitioner was required to submit his reply as to why he should not be dismissed from service and the amount of Rs. 24,900. 75 be recovered as arrears of land revenue. THE petitioner submitted a detailed reply pointing out that the fresh inquiry was never conducted and the inquiry report that had been enclosed alongwith the show-cause notice dated 19th July, 1996 was merely a copy of the earlier inquiry report dated 18th September, 1986. THE impugned order dated 30th October, 1996 was then passed terminating the services of the petitioner and the amount of Rs. 24,900. 75 was ordered to be recovered as land revenue. It is this order dated 30th October, 1996 which has been impugned with the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner and on the basis of the inquiry report, the order terminating the services of the petitioner had been passed. He has, therefore, submitted that it was not a case where this Court should interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.