226 of the companystitution praying for a writ quashing the order directing enquiry into the allegations regarding his work and companyduct as Tehsildar at Garautha, District Jhansi and for a direction setting aside the order of suspension dated July 11, 1959, and for a direction permitting the appellant to draw his full salary and allowances with all increments amounting to Rs.
Against the order passed by the High Court partially allowing the petition and directing the State Government to reconsider the matter regarding the pay and allowances due to the appellant for the period November 24, 1954, to April 28, 1959, this appeal has been preferred with certificate of fitness granted under Articles 132 1 and 133 1 b of the Constitution.
The Accountant General, by letter dated May 18.
27,238/10/ and for an order to the Accountant General to issue pay slips at the rate of Rs.
The appellant was again suspended by order dated July 11, 1959, issued by the Board of Revenue and was directed to hand over charge to the Naib Tehsildar of Tehsil Puranpur.
The appellant then applied to the Accountant General of Uttar Pradesh for payment of arrears of salary and allowances due to him.
1/ p.m. as token pay.
The pay for the period from the date following the date of the order of his dismissal till the date of his taking over charge of his duties as Tahsildar on reinstatement will be fixed at Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 12, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Writ Petition No.
The appellant applied on August 25, 1959, to the High Court at Allahabad by a petition under Art.
1959, informed the appellant that he was entitled to draw pay and allowances with effect from April 28, 1959 and that as regards the arrears of pay and allowances for the period between April 21, 1952, and April 28, 1959, reference had been made to the State Government about the terms and companyditions of the appellants reinstatement and that action would be taken on receipt of instructions in that behalf.
The appellant was also informed that the period of his dismissal, i.e. April 21, 1952, to the date of his taking over charge of his office as Tehsildar on reinstatement will be treated as on duty, and will companynt towards pension.
He was posted at Tehsil Puranpur in District Pilibhit and took charge of his office on April 28, 1959.
M. Lall, E. Udyarathnam and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
622 of 1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
228 of 1959.
The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissed the appellant from service, by order dated September 16, 1953.
B. Agrawalla and C. P. Lal, for the respondents.
In June, 1952, the Collector recommended to the Land Reforms Commission that the appellant be reverted to the post of Naib Tehsildar, but the Commissioner recommended to the State Government that the applicant be dismissed from service.
163 of 1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, challenging the legality of the order of dismissal principally on the ground that he was number afforded the opportunity of defending himself and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
76/11/ p.m. already drawn by him.
November 3.
On July 24, 1959, the Board of Revenue ordered that the salary of the appellant for the period between April 21, 1952, and the date of taking over charge of his duties as Tehsildar on reinstatement will be fixed as follows The pay from April 21, 1952 till the date of orders of his dismissal will be limited to the subsistence allowance of Rs.
The appellant was then by the Government of Uttar Pradesh Notification dated March 30, 1959, reinstated to his original post of Tehsildar.
By order dated April 21, 1952, the Collector of Jhansi suspended the appellant and companymenced an enquiry against him on certain charges of misdemeanour.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. In 1951 the appellant Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma held the post of Inspector Qanungo in the Revenue Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and was selected for the post of Tehsildar on probation.
The appellant then companymenced an action Suit No.
