Back
Allahbad High Court
G.D.SAHGAL
Ram Naresh Lall Ram Yash Lall - Appellant
Versus
The State of U. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11/17/1965
PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL RULES - Suspension and Dismissal - Authority - Lien - Reasonable Opportunity - Cross-Examination - Charge - Bribery - Natural Justice - Appeal - Reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a temporary Accounts Supervisor in the Agriculture Department, was transferred to the Agricultural Engineering Department and later to the Planning Department on deputation. He was provisionally confirmed on a permanent pensionable post in the Irrigation Department and continued to hold lien on that post. While on deputation, he was assigned a temporary post in the Planning Department. He was suspended and later dismissed by the Development Commissioner, who was not his appointing authority. He challenged the suspension, dismissal, and the rejection of his request for cross-examination of a witness through a lawyer.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Development Commissioner, not being the petitioner's appointing authority, lacked the authority to suspend or dismiss him. 2. The petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself by the rejection of his request for cross-examination of a witness through a lawyer, even though the circumstances did not warrant such assistance. 3. The charge of bribery was not proved as per the specific charge framed against the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The appellate authority's order did not contain reasons for the decision, but this did not vitiate the findings as the rules did not require a speaking order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Development Commissioner had the authority to suspend and dismiss the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 3. Whether the charge of bribery was proved as per the specific charge framed against the petitioner. 4. Whether the appellate authority's order was vitiated due to the absence of reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services delegate the power to suspend and dismiss to the appointing authority. Since the Development Commissioner was not the petitioner's appointing authority, he lacked the authority to take such actions. 2. The refusal to allow the petitioner to cross-examine a witness through a lawyer, even though the circumstances did not warrant such assistance, amounted to a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 3. The charge of bribery was not proved as per the specific charge framed against the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The appellate authority's order did not contain reasons for the decision, but this did not vitiate the findings as the rules did not require a speaking order.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The orders of suspension, dismissal, and the appellate authority's order were quashed. The respondents were directed to bear the petitioner's costs.
ORDER :- The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Accounts Supervisor in the Agriculture Department in the scale of Rs. 60-4-80-4-100 by the Director of Agriculture on the 26th of March, 1947, and was posted under the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Eastern Circle, Pratapgarh, where he joined his duties on the 1st of April, 1947. Thereafter by an order dated the 15th of February, 1949, he was transferred to the Agricultural Engineering Department as a temporary Assistant Accountant by the Director of Agriculture and was posted under the Agricultural Engineer (Tractors), Lucknow, of which post he took charge on the 19th of February, 1949. By an order of the Chief Agricultural Engineer, Kanpur dated the 9th of January, 1952 the petitioner was provisionally confirmed on a permanent pensionable post of Accounts Supervisor with affect from the 11th of July, 1949, by the order dated the 9th of January, 1952. The Agricultural Engineering Department was abolished on the 24th of August, 1952, and was merged in the Irrigation Department known as the Agricultural Engineering Circle of the Irrigation Department being in charge of a Superintending Engineer. On the 29th of June, 1954, under orders of the Agricultural Engineer (Tractors), Lucknow, under whom the petitioner was serving, he was transferred on deputation as an Assistant Accountant to the office of the Development Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 2, in the Planning Department. He actually took charge of this post on the 30th of July, 1954 (not on the 23rd of July, 1954, as stated in paragraph 5 of the petition). On the 9th of September, 1955, while he was on deputation, he was confirmed by an order of the Superintending Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Circle which later on came to be designated as Irrigation Workshop Circle. Kanpur, on a permanent pensionable post of Junior Clerk sanctioned in the Irrigation Department by a certain G. O. dated the 20th of April, 1955, in the scale of Rs. 60-4-100-5-120 with effect from the 1st of April, 1955. Respondent No. 2 under whom he was working on deputation, by an order dated the 31st of May, 1957, assigned to him the temporary post of the Senior Clerk in the scale of Rs. 80-6-110-6-140-10-200-20-240 in the Minor Irrigation Section of his office with effect from the 1st of April, 1957.
Respondent No. 1 the State of Uttar Pradesh, issued a G. O. on the 21st of May, 1958, directing respondent No 2, the Development Commissioner, to give the staff on deputation from the Irrigation Department and working under him for the execution of minor Irrigation schemes the option to elect their permanent transfer in the Planning Department or to go back to their parent department, namely, the Irrigation Department. He was further directed to issue a fresh order of appointment in respect of the staff who might elect to remain in the Planning Department. In compliance with that order the Deputy Development Commissioner (Technical) by a circular dated the 7th of July, 1958, addressed to all Additional District Magistrates (Planning) and District Planning Officers and the officers and the staff posted at Headquarters including the petitioner, invited their option and requested them to fill up and sign the Form of Election attached to the said circular letter. A copy of the circular letter is to be found in annexure III and a form is attached to it. The form shows that the option that was to be exercised by the officials on deputation was whether they elected to be transferred in the Planning Set-Up and re-appointed by the Development Commissioner or to go back to their parent department. The petitioner then exercised his option and elected to be transferred to the Planning Department and to be reappointed by respondent No. 2, but respondent No. 2 did not issue any order re-appointing him in the Planning Department. He accordingly claims that he continued to hold lien on his permanent post in the Irrigation Workshop Circle of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
