The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of an appointing authority cannot be termed as misconduct if there is no violation of the provisions of the Act and the action is taken in good faith.

Pradeep Kant and K. S. Rakhra, JJ.—Heard Sri S. K. Kalia and Sri. S. C. Yadav, learned counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner Dinesh Kumar Shukla challenges the order dated 26.7.2003, by means of which he has been dismissed from service.

3. The petitioner, while posted as Joint Director, Headquarters, Local Fund Audit Department, Allahabad and working as Incharge Director being the Chairman of the Selection Committee, made a selection for Group-C post in the Local Fund Audit Department.

4. The charge against the petitioner is that while making the appointments, the provisions of Section 3 Sub-Clause (6) of the U. P. Public Servants (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Reservation Act, 1994) were violated and, therefore, the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, which resulted into dismissal from service.

5. An advertisement for making appointments on Group-C posts in the Local Funds and Audit Department was issued some time in August, 1998. The combined written examination was held on 18.12.1998. The result of the said written examination was declared on 31.3.1999. This result was declared categorywise, namely, separately for general category candidates and the reserved category candidates. The candidates who were declared successful were called for interview. The reserved category candidates were called for interview separately on 22.3.1999 whereas general category candidates/other backward classes candidates were interviewed on 23.3.1999. The final result was declared on 31.3.1999, which again was categorywise.

6. A charge-sheet dated 5.2.2001, was served upon the petitioner levelling one charge saying that on complaints being received in respect of selection in question, a preliminary enquiry was conducted which revealed that in all 12 scheduled caste candidates, 13 other backward classes candidates and 24 general category caste candidates were selected but the provisions of Section 3 (6) of the Reservation Act, 1994, were not followed, which resulted in illegal selection of six candidates belonging to general category, namely, shown at serial Nos. 25, 26, 32, 34, 40 and 41 and in case provisions of Section 3 (6) have been followed then the reserved category candidates shown at serial Nos. 10, 12, 14 , 15, 20 and 24 ought to have been adjusted against the aforesaid candidates of general category and in place of six reserved category candidates, six more reserved category candidates, who were lower in merit, were to be given appointment.

7. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 16.2.2001, in which he admitted that the aforesaid provision has not been followed. However, proving himself not guilty, he stated that one Sri Ram Krishna Pandey had moved a complaint to the District Magistrate on which certain information was given and thereafter Sri. D. B. Singh, the then Director has submitted his report whereas the District Magistrate has not enquired anything from the petitioner.

8. Refuting the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted that he was not aware that Section 3 (6) would be applicable and that he was never disclosed or made known that the procedure as mentioned in the charge-sheet was to be followed.

9. Thereafter, an enquiry report dated 26.2.2001 was submitted by the enquiry officer, copy of which was served upon the petitioner on 30.8.2001 to which the petitioner submitted reply on 10.9.2001. After considering his reply, the impugned order of punishment dated 26.7.2003, dismissing the petitioner from service has been passed.

10. Besides challenging the order of dismissal from service on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that it was the handiwork of one Sri D. B. Singh, the then Director, against whose appointment the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 7429 of 2000 at Allahabad, which is still pending.

11. Sri