LAXMI NARAIN PANDE Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate and Collector, Ballia and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballia not to proceed with a departmental enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner and not to enforce an order of suspension passed against the petitioner by the Collector of Ballia. The petitioner has made the following allegations in his affidavit supporting the petition.

(2.) He entered the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1952 and worked as permanent Supervisor Qanungo for several years. In May 1958 lie was appointed Nail) Tahsildar Taxation. He alleges that, on or about 26th July, 1958, a conspiracy was hatched to "frame" the petitioner and involve him in serious trouble. According to him-the author of this conspiracy was a man called 'Chaturbhuj Sahai who was an officiating Sadar Qanungo and living as almost next door neighbour to the petitioner. This man's motive or cause of hostility to the petitioner has been detailed in several paragraphs of his affidavit. The petitioner alleges that Chaturbhuj Sahai, though senior to the petitioner, was officiating as Sadar Qanungo with effect from February 1958. He remained under suspension for several years for "misappropriation etcetra" -and came out of the clouds only recently. The petitioner further alleges that Chaturbhuj Sahai's financial condition was "far from satisfactory" as a result of his suspension and on account of his family troubles'. Consequently, after he was appointed officiating Sadar Qanungo "he has been making efforts for making gains for himself in numerous ways". But the petitioner "did not cooperate with him in his designs", with the result that he was not in the good books of Chaturbhuj Sahai. In May '"'1958 the petitioner was appointed Naib Tahsildar Taxation but the hopes of Chaturbhuj Sahai "in respect of the applicant (the petitioner) were belied". As far as I have been able to understand this allegation, it contains the obvious innundo that Chaturbhuj Sahai was trying to abuse his official position for the purpose of making illegal gains but the petitioner prevented him from doing so, or at any rate, did not cooperate with him in his designs, and that this was one of the contributory causes of Chaturbhuj Sahai's hostility to the petitioner, the other being his natural hostility to a person who , 'though his junior in years, had shot ahead of him and had been promoted Naib Tahsildar Taxation. Another cause which, according to the petitioner, fanned Chaturbhuj Sahai's hostility to him was his (Chaturbhuj Sahai's) desire to "push up" a man called Asthana who, though junior to the petitioner, was expected to be more accommodating in the matter of helping Chaturbhuj Sahai in his financial difficulties. The petitioner's ease is that for all these reasons Chaturbhuj Sahai wanted the petitioner out of the way and hatched a conspiracy to achieve his object.

(3.) The details of the conspiracy are given in the petitioner's affidavit. He says that Chaturbhuj Sahai made a false allegation against him that, on the night between 26th and 27th July 1958, the petitioner entered the house of Chaturbhuj Sahai for the purpose of illicit intercourse with the latter's wife. The petitioner alleges that this false allegation was manufactured in the course of that very night by Chaturbhuj Sahai. One of the reasons which may have prompted Chaturbhuj Sahai to make this allegation may be, according to the petitioner, "That he is addicted to liquor and the conspiracy related to the home affairs of the said Sri Chaturbhuj Sahai". This last allegation has been left vague and no particulars have been given.