After companysidering the appellants replies the Governor agreed with the Tribunal that the charges 1 to 3 are fully established against the appellant and ordered his removal from service by the order dated 1.8.1974.
The appellant had prayed for summoning 8 witnesses for being examined in his defence by filing an application dated 17.1.1972 for that purpose.
One Harish Kumar, Superintendent of Police who was appointed as an assessor in the inquiry companyduct before the Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Tribunal.
companytravened Rule 24 2 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.
The appellant submitted his interim reply and final reply on 19.11.1972 and 31 3.1973 respectively.
without obtaining the previous sanction of the appropriate authority and he thereby.
The appellant denied the charge and companytended that he had never visited Karachi and had been suffering from melancholia and treated by Dr. Mukerji at Calcutta.
The appellants defence was that the transfer was effected through a reputed dealer and therefore previous sanction of the appropriate authority was number necessary.
Charges 1 to 3 were more serious ones.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.74 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
The substance of the second charge was that while applying for extension of leave on 20.4.1968 he attempted to willfully deceive the Inspector General of Police by attempting to make him believe that he had been ill from 1.12.1967 to 20.4.1968 and was under treatment of a doctor at Calcutta although in fact he had been to Pakistan during the period and had obtained a medical certificate through deceitful and fraudulent means.
The substance of the third charge was that after having proceeded on leave with effect from 11.11.1967 he unauthorisedly and unlawfully visited Karachi in Pakistan some time between 22.11.1967 and 20.4.1968 without any valid passport or travel document and the he by companytravened s. 3 of the Passport Act, 1967.
4827 of 1974 which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
A number of witnesses for the department and some witnesses tor the defence were examined before the Tribunal which a after companysidering the oral and documentary evidence found charges 1 to 3 against the appellant.
1234 of 1977.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19.8.1974 dismissing in limine Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
500/ to One Lal Mohd.
The Governor accepted the Tribunals findings, took a tentative decision to dismiss the appellant from service and issued a second show cause numberice dated 29.9.1972 to him.
4827 of 1974 K. Garg and Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the appellant.
This appeal deserves to be allowed on a short point which unfortunately has number been numbericed by the learned Judges of the High Court before dismissing the writ petition in limine.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He failed to report about his whereabouts until an application was made by him on 24.4.1968 for extension of the leave.
He reiterated that he was under treatment of Dr. Mukerji at Calcutta from 1.12.1967 to 20.4.1968 and companytended that in that period he was treated by Dr. Das at Howrah from 10.1.1968 to 30.1.1968 for injuries to his numbere.
The substance of the first charge was that the appellant while posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit was granted 30 days leave with effect from 11.11.1967 and had to resume his duties on 10.12.1967 but failed to resume his duties and absented himself without previous permission or intimation to the Superintendent of Public and without good or sufficient cause.
Subsequently, the Tribunal submitted companyies of its findings to the Government with its recommendation that the appellant may be dismissed from service.
The Tribunal found that the transaction of sale of the scooter by the appellant to Lal Mohd was effected through M s. Anand Agencies, automobile engineers and reputed dealers in scooters and therefore there was sufficient companypliance with Rule 24 2 .
Prithviraj, Mrs. S. Dikshit, S.K. Kulshreshta and P. Mishra for the respondents .
4827 of 1974 which had been filed by the appellant for quashing the first respondents order dated 3.5.1974 removing him from service pursuant to the finding of the second respondent, P. Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow dated 10.7.1972 that the appellant was guilty of three of the four charges framed against him.
The fourth charge of which the appellant has been exonerated was that he had transferred his Vespa Scooter bearing Registration No.
The defence of the appellant was one of denial.
The appellant was employed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit at the relevant time.
The appellant challenged his removal from service in P. No.
The appellants defence was that he suffered from an attack of a mental disease, melancholia and was under the treatment of Dr. Mukerji at Calcutta from 1.12.1967 to 20.4.1968 and he has informed about his sudden illness and had applied for extension of the leave directly and also through his wife and he had furnished his leave address when he proceeded on 30 days leave.
UPI 9117 and valued at more than Rs.
