V.D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Madan Lal Chawla who, according to him, was a displaced person and originally belonged to West Punjab. He settled in Kanpur in 1951. He was appointed on 21-5-1951 as clerk at the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, which is an institute owned and run by the Government, by the Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. He was promoted to the post of stenographer and was declared provisional substantive stenographer'. According to the petitioner his work was very satisfactory and was appreciated and that be was awarded a special prize. The petitioner was working directly under the Principal, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur at the time the present incident arose. He never gave, according to him, any cause for a single warning to be issued against him and his service roll and record contain nothing but only good entries.
(2.) A communication was received by the petitioner dated 24-4-1059 from the Principal, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute intimating to him that under the orders of the Director of Industries he had been suspended. The cause of this notice appeared, according to the petitioner, that the Principal of the Institute had come in conflict with Dr. D. R. Dhingra, who was formerly a Director of Industries and ex officio Principal of the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute. The petitioner being the stenographer of Dr. Dhingra was not liked by the present Principal. The petitioner denied that there was any legal order of suspension against him from the Director of Industries, U. P., Kanpur. According to him he was appointed by the Director of Industries, who was superior in rank and office to the Principal and that no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him and no charge could be framed against him by any authority inferior in rank and office to the! Director of Industries.
(3.) The charge sheet was given to him on 1-5-1959 by the Principal which included charges from 23-8-1957 to 17-3-1959. The petitioner asked for certain, papers, on the basis of which those charges had been framed and which were to be relied upon against him. According to him, only copies of some of the papers were given. He submitted his reply on 20-5-1959. After some more papers were given to him, he submitted a second reply on 11-6-1959 and the third reply was given on 30-6-1959.;