STATE OF U P Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others is directed against the order dated August 25, 1981 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (III), Lucknow, allowing a claim petition filed by Ram Singh, the first respondent, against the order of dismissal passed by the Director of Agriculture on February 7, 1977.

(2.) THE respondent no. 1 was appointed as a member of the U. P. Subordinate Agriculture Service, Group III, on temporary basis under an order dated June 13, 1968 of the Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration), U. P. and pursuant to that order he joined the service at Etah by the order of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Agra Region, on July 3, 1968. He continued in that post till his services were terminated under the aforesaid order of dismissal passed by the Director of Agriculture. On April 13, 1970 he was placed under suspension by an order of the District Agriculture Officer, Etah, on complaints of alleged embezzlement. THE matter was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, Etah, who directed that the godown where the respondent no. 1 was working be checked. On checking it is alleged a shortage of stock worth Rs. 22,832.48 was detected. THE account books were also found missing whereupon a report was lodged with Police Station Aliganj. After investigations the police submitted before the Magistrate concerned a charge sheet against the respondent no. 1 containing allegations of criminal misappropriation. THEse events led to initiation of departmental proceedings against the said respondent by the District Agriculture Officer with the serving of a charge sheet on respondent no. 1 on April 21, 1974. No reply was, however, submitted by the respondent no 1. It may be mentioned here that the District Agriculture Officer had, by that time been designated as the appointing authority in respect of the employees of the rank of the respondent no. 1 belonging to the said Subordinate Agriculture Service, Group III. Departmental proceedings were thereupon held by the District Agriculture Officer who submitted his report for necessary action against the respondent no. 1 to the Director of Agriculture, U. P. On the basis of the said report the Director of Agriculture issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 1 on August 5, 1976 but again no reply was submitted by the said respondent whereupon ultimately the Director of Agriculture passed an order of dismissal on February 7, 1977.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal's Order cannot be sustained. As mentioned above, the final order of dismissal has been passed by the Director of Agriculture. The show cause notice was also issued by him. The departmental proceedings were no doubt initiated by the District Agriculture Officer but under a Government Order the District Agriculture Officer had been designated as the appointing authority in the case of employees of the category and rank of the respondent. He could hence lawfully serve a charge sheet on the respondent. What Article 311 of the Constitution mandates is that the order of dismissal or removal must fee made by an authority not subordinate to the appointing authority. It does not require that the order initiating the enquiry or the enquiry itself must be made conducted by the appointing authority himself or by some officer not subordinate to him.