Even though the G.Os.
He pointed out two G.Os.
After holing enquiry, he submitted a report to the disciplinary authority which authority, accepting the report of the District Agriculture Officer, passed the order of dismissal dated 11.4.1977 dismissing the respondent number 1 from service.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State filed writ petition before the High Court.
Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated and further proceedings taken, culminating into an order of dismissal, were all vitiated.
which had the assent of the Governor.
1 filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal.
1, namely the Director of Agriculture, neither he companyld initiate disciplinary proceedings number any action companyld be taken on the disciplinary proceedings so initiated by an incompetent authority.
1 herein was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector, Group Ill by the Director of Agriculture.
This companytention found favour with the Tribunal as well as with the High Court.
In other words, it is the appointing authority which passed the order of dismissal.
1 belonged at the relevant point of time, would number cure the defect, namely, initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the District Agriculture Officer while the Director of Agriculture having been the appointing authority.
1 was appointed, the Director of Agriculture companyld number have appointed him.
On account of certain irregularity or misconduct the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Agriculture Officer.
The High Court agreeing with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, dismissed the writ petition.
Hence, this appeal.
1 this Court may number disturb the companycurrent finding.
themselves.
Before the Tribunal, the stand of respondent No.
He further submitted that when the Tribunal and the High Court have companycurrently found in favour of respondent No.,
the District Agriculture Officer was companypetent to initiate disciplinary proceedings as an appointing authority, as is evident from the G.Os.
The Tribunal accepted this companytention, observing that subsequent delegation of power or making the District Agriculture Officer an appointing authority in relation to Group III posts, to which respondent No.
1 was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector on 24.6.1966 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Agriculture Officer on 10.1.1974 and the order of dismissed came to be passed on 11.4.1977.
dated 15.6.1961 and 26.12.1983 to show that on those dates the District Agriculture Officer was the appointing authority by virtue of the powers companyferred on them by all the relevant G.Os.
1 having been appointed by the Director of Agriculture, the District Agriculture Officer companyld number have initiated the disciplinary proceedings.
1 was that the District Agriculture Officer being lower in rank than the appointing authority of respondent No.
Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent No.
Ill, Lucknow.
1, these G.Os.
He was appointed by the Director of Agriculture and the order of dismissal was passed by the Director of Agriculture on 11.4.1977.
1 strongly companytended that the two suspension orders were passed one by the Project Officer who was lower in rank to the District Agriculture Officer and the second by the District Agriculture Officer and there was inconsistency between the two.
referred to by the learned companynsel for the appellant were prior to the appointment of respondent No.
The learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that respondent No.
1, and the District Agriculture Officer was the appointing authority yet he was appointed by the Director of Agriculture.
On the basis of these G.Os.,
Before the said Tribunal, a companytention was raised that respondent No.
