Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) is the petitioner in this petition. It has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 17082 of 1986 directing it to comply with the order dated August 30, 1986 passed by the State Government on an appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 against the order passed by the Commission in a disciplinary proceeding held against him.

2. Respondent No. 1 was working as a Section Officer in the office of the Commission. On July 18, 1981 he was placed under suspension on certain charges and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In the said enquiry he was found guilty and he was reverted to the rank of an Upper Division Assistant by the order dated April 24, 1982 and by another order passed on the same day he was dismissed from service. Against these orders Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the State Government. The State Government found that Respondent No. 1 had not been given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced at the disciplinary enquiry, that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence from his side and that, therefore, the punishment imposed on him was violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the order of dismissal passed against him in the disciplinary enquiry was set aside and the Commission was directed to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The order of the State Government further directed the Commission to reinstate Respondent No. 1 as an Upper Division Assistant pending final decision in the disciplinary enquiry. It was also ordered that the salary and allowances due to Respondent No. 1 from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement should be paid to him. The above order was passed on August 30, 1986. Respondent No. 1 applied to the Commission on September 3, 1986 to permit him to rejoin the service as ordered by the State Government. When the Commission declined to comply with the order of the State Government, Respondent No. 1 instituted the writ petition, referred to above, in the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a direction to the Commission to comply with the order of the State Government. After hearing the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the Commission, the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the directions as stated above. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Commission has filed this petition.

3. Two contentions are urged before us on behalf of the Commission (i) since the Commission, which is a constitutional authority, is not subordinate to the State Government, the State Government could not have heard the appeal filed against the order passed by the Commission in a disciplinary proceeding and (ii) in any event the appeal should have been disposed of by the Governor himself and not by the Governor in accordance with the advice of the State Government.

4. The conditions of service of the members of the Staff of the Commission are regulated by the U.P. Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1937 made under Sec. 265(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 (corresponding to Art. 318 of the Constitution) as they have been continued under the provisions of the Constitution. Regulation 20 of the said Regulations, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Regulations, 1978 made by the Governor under Art. 318 of the Constitution reads as follows :

"20. Appointments to the gazetted ministerial posts other than those of the Under Secretary and the Assistant Secretary shall be made by the Commission.

(Appeals against the order of the Commission shall be to the Governor)."

5. Regulation 28 of the U.P. Public Service Commission Staff Regulations, 1942 lays down as follows :

"28. Regulation of pay, leave allowance, pension and other conditions of service- Ex