In any event by virtue of the amendment made to rule 20 in 1978 appeals against the orders of the Commission passed in respect of the gazetted ministerial officers other than the Under Secretary and the Assistant Secretary lie to the Governor.
It was also ordered that the salary and allowances due to Respondent No.
1 had number been given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced at the disciplinary enquiry, that he had number been given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence from his side and that, therefore, the punishment imposed on him was violative of Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
1 and the Commission, the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the directions as stated above.
Respondent No.
On July 18, 1981 he was placed under suspension on certain charges and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him.
1 was working as a Section Officer in the office of the Commission.
The companyditions of service of the members of the Staff of the Commission are regulated by the U.P. Public Service Commission Conditions of Service Regulations, 1937 made under section 265 2 of the Government of India Act, 1935 companyresponding to Article 3 18 of the Constitution as they have been companytinued under the provisions of the Constitu tion.
Appeals against the order of the Commission shall be to the Governor .
In the said enquiry he was found guilty and he was reverted to the rank of an Upper Division Assistant by the order dated April 24, 1982 and by another order passed on the same day he was dismissed from service.
1 as an Upper Division Assistant pending final decision in the disciplinary enquiry.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.1.87 of the Allaha bad High Court in Writ Petition No.
Two companytentions are urged before us on behalf of the Commission i since the Commission, which is a companystitu tional authority, is number subordinate to the State Govern ment, the State Government companyld number have heard the appeal filed against the order passed by the Commission in a disci plinary proceeding.
When the Commission declined to companyply with the order of the State Government, Respondent No.
1 applied to the Commission on September 3, 1986 to permit him to rejoin the service as ordered by the State Government.
1 from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement should be paid to him.
The State Government found that Respondent No.
The above order was passed on August 30, 1986.
1 preferred an appeal before the State Government.
1 instituted the writ petition, referred to above, in the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a direction to the Commission to companyply with the order of the State Government.
1 against the order passed by the Commission in a disciplinary proceeding held against him.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Commission has filed this petition.
and ii in any event the appeal should have been disposed of by the Governor himself and number by the Governor in accordance with the advice of the State Govern ment.
The order of the State Government further directed the Commission to reinstate Respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Regulation 20 of the said Regulations, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Conditions of Service Amendment Regulations, 1978 made by the Governor under Article 3 18 of the Constitution reads as follows Appointments to the gazetted ministerial posts other than those of the Under Secretary and the Assistant Secretary shall be made by the Commission.
Accordingly, the order of dismissal passed against him in the disciplinary enquiry was set aside and the Commission was directed to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.
Respondent No.
Rule 69 A sets out the proce dure to be followed in filing a petition under rule 69.
Against these orders Respondent No.
After heating the learned companynsel for Respondent No.
17082/86.
3865 of 1987.
17082 of 1986 directing it to companyply with the order dated August 30, 1986 passed by the State Government on an appeal filed by Respondent No.
Rule 69 and rule 69 A are substantially applicable to the members of the staff of the Commission by virtue of Regulation 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Staff Regulations, 1942, extracted above, even though the Commission may number be an authority subordinate to the State Government because while applying rule 69 to the staff of the Commission the rule should be read with the necessary modification by substitut ing in the place of the words an authority subordinate to it the words the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.
K. Jain for the Respondent.
It has questioned the companyrectness of the order passed by the High Court of Allaha bad in Writ Petition No.
N. Kacker and R.B. Mehrotra for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission is the petitioner in this petition.
