IMPORTANT POINT
It is for disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of punishment to be imposed on Govt. Servant based on proved misconduct against Govt. servant.

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad High Court. Lucknow Bench made on September 5, 1991 in W.P. No. 9550 of 1989. The respondent had challenged the order of his removal from service. He was appointed on December 4, 1973 as a Clerk in the Collectorate, Hardoi on temporary basis. He was removed from service in the year 1977 and, ultimately, by orders of the Court he was reinstated in the service on July 12, 1984. By proceedings dated May 25, 1987, he was kept under suspension on disciplinary grounds and enquiry was conducted in that behalf. Though opportunities were given to the respondent, he did not avail it. He had asked for production of 21 witnesses for cross-examination. The enquiry officer considered that nine witnesses were relevant in respect of charges and that respondent was called upon to cross-examine those witnesses but respondent had not chosen to cross-examine those witnesses. Consequently by proceedings dated December 5, 1987, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the 5 charges were proved against the respondent and recommended for his dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority passed the order on January 6, 1988 removing the respondent from service. The representative petition before the Service Tribunal resulted in dismissal. His writ petition was allowed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

2. It is seen that since the respondent did not cooperate in the enquiry, the witnesses could not be examined with regard to charges 1, 3 and 5. Charge 2 relates to sale of properties worth Rs. 91,000/- to the private persons and also purchase of the properties worth Rs. 10,000/-, which are admitted facts. According to the explanation given by the respondent, he sought oral permission and pursuant to the oral permission, he had sold the properties. With regard to his capacity to purchase the properties worth Rs. 10,000/-, he had stated that pursuant to his reinstatement in service, out of payment of arrears of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- he had purchased the properties worth Rs. 10,000/-. According to him, his father had purchased the property in his name and, therefore, he had to execute the sale deed to the third party as a vendor. This was brought to the notice of the authorities and that oral permission was given. The question is : whether oral permission is valid in law ?

Rule 24 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 is as under :-

"24. Movable, immovable and valuable property-(1) No Government servant shall except with the previous knowledge of the appropriate authority, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family;

Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular and reputed dealer require the previous sanction of the appropriate authority.

(2) A Government servant who enters into any transaction concerning any movable property exceeding in value, the amount of his pay for one month or rupees one thousand, whichever is less, whether by way of purchaser, sale or otherwise, shall forthwith report such transaction to the appropriate authority;

Provided that no government servant shall enter into any such transaction except with or through a reputed dealer or agent of standing or with the appropriate authority.

(3) At the time of first appointment and thereafter at intervals of five years, every government servant shall make to the appointing authority through the usual channel, a declaration of all immovable property owned, acquired or inherited by him or held by him on lease or mortgage and of shares and other investments, which may, from time to time be held or acquired by him or by his wife or by any member of his family living with, or in any way dependent upon him such declaration should state the full particulars of the property,