He also showed cause against the proposed punishment.
A Division Bench of the High Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, by its judgment and order dated January 8, 1954, disposed of both the writ petitions holding that the orders impugned were invalid for the reason that the provisions of Art.
27 from this part of the judgment and order of the High Court.
In July, 1952, the respondent was transferred as Headmaster of a certain High School, but he did number join his post and went on leave on medical grounds.
The respondents companyduct as a member of that Committee was number found to be satisfactory and above board, inasmuch as it was discovered that he had allowed his private interests to companye in company flict with his public duties.
It is necessary to state the following facts In 1920, the respondent was employed in the education department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and in due companyrse, was promoted to the United Provinces Education Service Junior Scale .
The High Court refused the respondents prayer in respect of the full salary for the period of suspension during which he had been deprived of it by the orders of the Government impugned by him.
It did number pass any order in respect of the companypulsorys retirement because that had happened in due companyrse before the judgment of the High Court.
The order of companypulso ry retirement was more or less superfluous as the respondent would have retired in the ordinary companyrse with effect from September 15, 1953, as already indicated.
While on leave, the respondent was suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1952.
The appellant has filed appeal No.
During the pend ency of the first writ petition, and after it had been heard by the High Court in part, the respondent filed the second writ application being Writ Petition No.
On February 2, 1953, the respondent filed the first petition Writ Petition No.
121 of 1953 challenging the validity of the order of the Government suspending him and calling upon him to show cause why he should number be reduced in rank with effect from the date of suspension, and also companypulsorily retired.
27 and respondent in C. A. No.
He was found to have shown favours in the selection of books on approved list, in respect of certain books said to have been written by a nephew of his, aged only 14 years, and by another relation of his, as also to a firm of publishers who had advanced certain sums of money to him on interest.
The High Court, therefore, quashed the orders of the Govern ment reducing him in rank and reducing his emoluments with effect from the date of suspension as aforesaid.
The Commission was companysulted but it appears from the find ings of the High Court that the respondents written expla nation submitted on July 3,1953, was number before the Commis sion.
132 1 of the Constitution, arise out of a companymon judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in two writ petitions Nos.
The respondent is shown therein as one of those, and in the last companyumn meant for showing the dates of re tirement, September 15, 1953, is mentioned as against his name.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant in C. A. No.
It is number necessary for the purposes of this case, to set out the charges framed against him except to state that the details of the books said to have been written by his prodi gy nephew and his other relation, were given, the gravamen of the charges being that.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated the 8th January, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
A Government numberification dated January 9, 1953, was published showing the names of the officers of the education department, who would retire in due companyrse on superannuation, that is to say, at the age of 55, and the companyresponding dates of super annuation.
PerhapRr realising that the show cause notice served upon the respondent as aforesaid, in November, 1952, would number fully satisfy the requirements of a reasonable opportunity as companytemplated by the Constitu tion, the Director of Education forwarded to the respondent, along with a companyering letter dated June 16, 1953, a companyy of the report of the inquiry and again called upon him to show cause why the proposed penalty of reduction in rank be number imposed upon him.
Presumably, the Commission was supplied with all the rele vant material upto the date of the second show cause numberice.
The respondent submitted a lengthy written statement in his defence and did number insist on oral examination of witnesses, but enclosed with his explanation certain affidavits in support of his case.
27 and 28 of 1955.
He, recommended that the respondent be demoted to the subordinate Education Service and be companypulsorily retired.
Civil Appeal No.
The explanation submitted on July 3, 1953, was a much more elaborate one dealing number only with the three charges which had been made against him, but also with other irrele vant findings of the inquiry officer who had made several observations against the respondents efficiency and company duct, which were number the subject matter of the several heads of charge framed against the respondent, and, therefore, number called for.
After companysidering the opinion of the Commis sion, the inquiry report and the several explanations sub mitted by the respondent, the State Government passed its final order dated September 12, 1953, reducing the respond ent in rank from the U. P. Education Service Junior Scale to Subordinate Education Service, with effect from August 2, 1952, and companypulsorily retiring him.
CIVIL APPPELATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
In pursuance of the sbow cause notice served upon the respondent on November 13, 1952, he put in a long written explanation on November 26, 1952, on the same lines as his written statement of defence submitted earlier as aforesaid, bearing on the merits of the findings as also objecting to the procedure adopted at the inquiry.
For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the State of Uttar Pra desh as the appellant and the petitioner in the High Court Sri Manbodhan Lal Srivastava as the respondent, in the companyrse of this judgment which companyers both the appeals.
After company sidering the report aforesaid, the Government decided on November 7, 1952, to call upon the respondent, under Art.
Another charge related to his having benefited a certain firm of publishers whose books, about a dozen in number, had been selected by the Committee of which he was a member.
817 of 1953 on September 23, 1953, practically companyering the same grounds and praying for the same reliefs as aforesaid.
27 has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Civil Appeal No.
311 2 of the Constitution, to show cause why the punishment suggested in the departmental inquiry report should number be imposed upon him.
In September, the same year, the Director of Education issued orders, framing charges against the respondent and calling upon him to submit his written statement of defence and giving him an opportunity to call evidence in support of it.
He companytinued to function as such until 1951.
320 3 c of the Constitution had number been fully companyplied with because the last written explanation of the respondent submitted on July 3, 1953, had number been placed before the Commission.
27 and appel lant in C. A. No.
Writ No.
While holding the post of officer on special duty, the respondent was also appointed a member of the Book Selection Committee.
C. Sen, for the respondent in C. A. No.
In that petition, he also challenged the legality of the entire proceedings and prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to pay his full salary during the period of suspension until he attained the age of superannuation as aforesaid.
he did number inform the Committee of his relationship with the alleged authors of the books, the selection of which was calculated to brine, pecuniary benefit to those relations.
28 by the petitioner in the Court below.
The Director of Education, after a thorough inquiry into the charges framed against the respondent, submitted a report to the effect that the charges framed against him had been substantially proved.
September 20.
817 of 1953.
226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Govern ment of Uttar Pradesh, reducing him in rank, and ordering his companypulsory retirement from service.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHEA J. These two cross appeals on certificates granted by the High Court under Art.
In the year 1948, the respondent was appointed an officer on special duty and managing editor of a quarterly journal issued by the education department, under the style Shiksha .
121 and 817 of 1953, dated January 8,1954, allowing, in part and dismissing in part, the two petitions under Art.
This took place in 1946.
