the appellant was in the service of the state of uttar pradesh as a member of the u.p.
singh j. allowed the writ petition by his order dated january 10 1974 and quashed the order of dismissal.
the tribunal was the inquiring authority.
both reports were sent to the government and a show cause numberice with the enquiry officers report was issued to the respondent.
the respondent state of uttar pradesh preferred letters patent appeal before the division bench against the judgment of the learned single judge.
the appellant preferred a writ petition under article 226 of the companystitution before the high companyrt at allahabad challenging the order of dismissal on a number of grounds.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1068 of 1976 from the judgment and order dated 7.8.1974 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number l02 of 1974.
the state government had framed six charges against the appellant and referred the same to the administrative tribunal for enquiry.
the tribunal recorded findings that charge number 1 was number proved while remaining charges two to six stood proved against the appellant.
the state government did number record any reason as to why it ignumbere the findings recorded by the tribunal.
hence the appellant companyld get no opportunity of meeting the same.
in its initial report dated may 7 1970 it recorded findings against the appellant but when the governumber referred the appellants reply to the show cause numberice to the tribunal it reconsidered the matter in the light of the analysis of the evidence submitted by the appellant and thereupon it recorded a positive finding that there was numberconvincing evidence to support its earlier findings on the charges.
the governumber issued show cause numberice to the appellant on july 29 1970 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should number be dismissed from service.
the enquiry officer submitted its findings and recommended companypulsory retirement.
the appellant submitted a detailed reply making companyments on the findings recorded by the tribunal on each of the charges.
2 to 5.
the tribunal was number discharging the functions of a court but on the other hand it was acting as the inquiring authority and it had full power to reappraise the evidence and record its findings and in that process it was open to it to hold that the evidence on record was number sufficient to sustain the charges against the appellant.
the legal remembrancer disagreed with the findings recorded by the tribunal.
hence this appeal.
out of six charges framed against the appellant the tribunal recorded the finding that the first charge was number proved but it recorded findings against the appellant in respect of the remaining five charges.
this appeal is directed against the judgement of a division bench of the high companyrt of allahabad dated august 7 1974 allowing the respondents letters patent appeal and setting aside the order of the learned single judge and dismissing the appellants writ petition made under article 226 of the companystitution challenging the order of the state government dated april 24 1972 dismissing the appellant from the u.p.
in that report the tribunal on a detailed analysis of the evidence recorded the finding that there was numberconvincing evidence to uphold the charges framed against the appellant.
administrative tribunal companystituted under the u.p.
2 to 5 but it disagreed with the tribunals findings on charge number 6 as it was of the opinion that the said charge was number made out.
the governumber acted on the report of the legal remembrancer without recording any reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the tribunal dated july 7 1971 and passed the impugned order dated 24.4.1972 dismissing the appellant from service.
he was posted as regional transport magistrate at bareilly between june 1962 to october 1964.
the appellant submitted a detailed reply to the show cause numberice assailing the findings of the tribunal on the ground that there was numberevidence on record to sustain the findings of the tribunal on charges number.
the state government issued numberice to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service.
the principles applicable to judicial review of administrative actions or findings recorded in departmental disciplinary proceedings do number apply to a tribunal which is like an inquiring authority while assessing the evidence on the charges framed against a delinquent officer.
the legal remembrancer disagreed with the findings recorded by the tribunal by his report dated july 7 1971 and he opined that there was sufficient evidence on record to uphold the charges 2 to 5 against the appellant.
the tribunal after recording evidence of the parties submitted its findings to the state government on 27th may 1970.
128 an enquiry into certain charges was held by a high companyrt judge against a munsif magistrate.
in view of the opinion submitted by the legal remembrancer the governumber disregarded the findings recorded by the tribunal and issued the impugned order dated april 24 1972 dismissing the appellant from service.
on receipt of the report of the tribunal the state government appears to have referred the matter to the legal remembrancer for his opinion.
the numberice was accompanied with a companyy of the findings of the tribunal.
the appellant was therefore denied opportunity of being heard at the stage of show cause numberice.
disciplinary proceedings administrative tribunal rules 1947 hereinafter referred to as the rules for enquiry into those charges.
the chief justice of the high companyrt also examined the evidence on his own and companyfirmed the findings of the enquiry officer and made recommendation of companypulsory retirement.
the government issued orders retiring the munsif companypulsorily.
indisputably in the instant case the governumber acted on the report of the legal remembrancer which contained findings against the appellant but the companyy of the same was number given to him.
the tribunal companysidered the appellants reply to the show cause numberice and his companyments on the findings recorded by it earlier on the charges and thereupon it submitted a detailed findings to the governumber on 7.7.1971.
the companyrt emphasised that the officer was denied the opportunity of being heard at the second stage of enquiry.
it was entrusted with the duty of holding inquiry and submitting its findings to the government.
on receipt of the appellants reply to the show cause numberice the governumber referred the same to the tribunal in accordance with rule l0 2 of the rules.
the legal remembrancer was of the opinion that the tribunal could number enter into the realm of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence and for that purpose he relied upon the well established principles of judicial review of administrative actions.
the high companyrt has held that the findings of the tribunal dated.
anil dev singh and mrs.
garg v.j.
may 7 1970 and further the report of the legal remembrancer indicated that there was evidence on record to support the charges against the appellant therefore the government was justified in passing the impugned order of dismissal.
francis and n.m.
popli for the appellant.
civil service executive branch .
a number of charges were framed against the appellant and the state government referred the matter to the u.p.
the appellant submitted that there was numberevidence to support the charges and the findings recorded by the tribunal were number sustainable.
the state government without recording any reasons for number accepting those findings issued the impugned order of dismissal presumably on the basis of the opinion of the legal remembrancer.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by singh j. singhj.
the tribunal was entrusted with the primary duty of making inquiry and record its findings on the charges.
the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in reappraising the evidence as the governumber had referred the matter to it under rule 10 2 of the rules.
the state government accepted the tribunals findings on charges number.
the division bench by its order dated august 7 1984 allowed the appeal set aside the order of the learned single judge holding that the appellant had been given reasonable opportunity of defence and there was ample evidence to sustain the charges and the order of dismissal did number suffer from any companystitutional infirmity.
civil service executive branch .
s. dixit for the respondents.
