This order was challenged by the appellant by an appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 10, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No.
Thereupon, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad on July 14, 1958, and prayed that a writ, or a direction or an appropriate order should be passed against the appellant quashing the proceedings intended to be taken against him before the enquiring officer appointed by the appellant under Rule 55 of the Civil Services classification, Control and Appeal Rules.
On November 12, 1956, the respondent submitted his explanation and pleaded that in case the appellant wanted to pursue the enquiry against him, it might be entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Rules.
While the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending, additional companyplaints were received by the appellant against the respondents companyduct, and they were companymunicated by the appellant to the Tribunal with an intimation that the appellant proposed to send those further charges against the respondent for enquiry.
That is why the writ petition was allowed and the order directing the enquiry to be held by the appointed authority under Rule 55 of the said Civil Services Rules was quashed.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has companye to this Court.
The learned single judge who heard the writ petition held that the respondent being a gazetted officer, the appellant was bound to grant his request that the enquiry against him should be held by the Administrative Tribunal appointed Under the Rules.
301 of 1961.
On June 28, 1958, the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, U. P., informed the respondent that in accordance with the orders passed by the appellant his case had been entrusted to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, with directions to take disciplinary proceedings against him, and his request that the charges against him, should be entrusted for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal had been rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On August 4, 1952, he was suspended as companyplaints had been received against him and an enquiry into the said companyplaints was companytemplated.
Accordingly, charges were framed against him and his case was referred for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal appointed under the Rules.
40 of 1959.
The Tribunal held an enquiry and exonerated the respondent from the charges framed against him, in August 1953.
S. Hajela, and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
L. Gosain and Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
That is why on October 28, 1955, the respondent was again suspended and charges framed on the additional companyplaints received against him were delivered to him on October 29, 1956.
The respondent Jogendra Singh was appointed a Naib Tehsildar under the appellant, the State of U. P. in the year 1937.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J .
March 4.
The Tribunal did number wait for receipt of the said additional charges because it was asked by the government to proceed with the charge already with it and companycluded its enquiry.
