CHAIN SUKH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-11-1975, passed by the District Magistrate dis missing the petitioner from service, order dated 26-11-1976, passed by the Commis sioner dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 11-12-1982, Cissed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, ucknow dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was a Collection Amin in the Revenue Department. It was on 25-6-1975 that a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner calling his explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 28-7-1975. THEreafter another show cause notice and an additional chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 18-7-1975. Petitioner filed reply of the said chargesheet also on 21-10-1975. THEreafter the enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted and supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner was dismissed from his service by the District Magistrate vide order dated 11-11-1975. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Magistrate, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commis sioner. THE appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed on 26-12-1976. Petitioner thereafter appears to have approached to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, but without waiting for the result of the representation he filed a claim peti tion before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. THE claim petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 11-2-1982. Challeng ing the validity of the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Commissioner and the Public Service Tribunal, present petition has been filed for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel in reply to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that full oppor tunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, as is evident from the facts stated in the impugned orders. Copy of enquiry report was also supplied to him and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been found guilty of misappropriation of Government money, he did not deserve any lenient view in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.