JOGENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Naib Tahsildar in 1937. He worked at several places and ultimately rose to the rank of a Deputy Collector in which capacity he officiated at Azamgarh and Unnao till September, 1948. There were complaints against his work while he was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unnao. This once led to his reversion to his substantive post of Tahsildar on 18-9-1948. Alhough, the petitioner has so claimed, he was exonerated subsequently on the charges levelled against him after an inquiry by the Criminal Investigation Department his reversion on the post of Tahsildar continued.

(2.) In December, 1948, he, therefore, took over charge as Tahsildar at Sikandera Rao in the district of Aligarh. As, however, further complaints were made against him, fresh charges were delivered to him in connection with his work at Sikandera Rao. He was also placed under suspension on 4-8-1952. The Government apparently because the petitioner as a Tahsildar was a gazetted officer referred the said charges for inquiry to the Administrative Tribunal in 1952. Again, he was successful in getting a favourable order from the Tribunal which held the charges not proved. This was in August, 1953. While the proceedings were still continuing before the Tribunal a communication was received by the Tribunal from the Government on 18-11-1952, to the effect that the latter proposed to send some further charges against the petitioner for inquiry. These further charges related to his work as Tahsildar, Banegaon in the district of Gorakhpur. Admittedly the Tribunal did not wait for the receipt of these additional charges and concluded its inquiry on the charges already before it. The petitioner has claimed that these additional charges were frivolous and engineered by his opponents. According to him the District Magistrate concerned also exonerated him from the blame.

(3.) The other facts are that the said additional charges were not dropped but they were entrusted lor further investigation to the Criminal Investigation Department. The petitioner was also suspended with effect from 28-10-1955 though these charges were formally delivered to him on 29-10-1956. In submitting his explanation on these charges he requested that, in case the Government wanted to pursue the inquiry against him, the same might be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. On 28-6-1958 the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, U. P. informed the petitioner that in accordance with the orders received from the Government his case had been entrusted to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, with directions to take disciplinary proceedings against him (vide Annexure X). In other words, the inquiry on the charges was entrusted to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, and his request that it be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal was turned clown. Thereupon the petitioner filed the present petition impugning the order of the Government entrusting the inquiry to the Commissioner.