IMPORTANT POINT
Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority.

ORDER

The State of U.P. and another are before us in this appeal, assailing the order passed by the High Court in a writ petition affirming the order passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal No. III, Lucknow. The respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector, Group-III by the Director of Agriculture. On account of certain irregularity or misconduct the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the District Agriculture Officer. After holding 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 No.1 from service. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Before the said Tribunal, a contention was raised that respondent No. 1 having been appointed by the Director of Agriculture the District Agriculture Officer could not have initiated the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated and further proceedings taken, culminating into an order of dismissal, were all vitiated. The Tribunal accepted this contention, 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 belonged at the relevant point of time, would not cure the defect, namely, initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the District Agriculture Officer while the Director of Agriculture having been the appointing authority. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court agreeing with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that 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 dismissal came to be passed on 11.4.1977. He pointed out two G.Os. dated 15.6.1961 and 26.12.1982 to show that on those dates the District Agriculture Officer was the appointing authority by virtue of the powers conferred on them by the relevant G.Os. which had the assent of the Governor. On the basis of these G.Os., the learned counsel contended that prior to the appointment of the respondent No. 1, these G.Os. were very much in existence. It appears to us that the Tribunal and the High Court were under a wrong impression that the District Agriculture Officer was made an appointing authority subsequent to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. He further submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings, could be by an authority lower in rank than the disciplinary authority. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in 1970(1) SCC 108, 1993(1) SCC 419 and 1994 (2) SCC 746. According to the learned counsel, having regard to these aspects both the Tribunal and the High Court committed an error and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3. In opposition, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 strongly contended 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. Even though the G.Os. referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant were prior to the appointment of respondent No. 1, and the District Agriculture Officer was the appointing authority yet he was appointed by the Director of Agriculture. He further submitted that when the Tribunal and the High Court have concurrently found in favour of respondent No.1, this Court may not disturb the concurrent finding.

4. The facts that are not in dispute are: the respondent No. 1 was