RAJESHWAR SWARUP GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited in Government service as Naib Tahsildar. He earned promotions. In 1961 he was appointed as Tahsildar in officiating capacity. In 1966 he was selected for confirmation against a clear vacancy on the post of Tahsildar. In 1968 he was promoted to officiate on the post of Deputy Collector. While he was posted at Saharanpur as a Deputy Collector, the Government issued an order on August 19, 1970 reverting him to the post of Tahsildar. The Board of Revenue was directed to issue orders for the petitioner's posting as Tahsildar. The Board of Revenue thereafter posted the petitioner as Tahsildar at Agra. On October 28, 1970 the Board of Revenue issued orders placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect with a direction that the petitioner would be given pay l|3rd of his salary as subsistance allowance. The petitioner made several representations to the Board of Revenue as well as to the State Government for rescinding the suspension or in the alternative to proceed with the enquiry, if any, against him, but he received no reply from them.

(2.) AFTER waiting for a period of about 4 years, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of the present writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the State Government dated August 19, 1970 reverting the petitioner to the post of the Tahsildar and the order of the Board of Revenue dated October 28, 1970 placing the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) IN the instant case the averments contained in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the counter-affidavit make it amply clear that the petitioner was reverted from the officiating post of Deputy Collector because there were serious complaints against him and because Vigilance had submitted report on the basis of which the petitioner was found to have committed misconduct. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of defence prior to the issue of the impugned order of reversion. In the circumstances the order of reversion is rendered illegal and void.