Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a Dy. S. P. During his student days at Allahabad he got very friendly with a girl Kumari Kumudni who was a class fellow of the petitioner's niece. The petitioner and Kumari Kumudni were keen to marry each other. The parents of Kumari Kumudni did not agree to marrying her with the petitioner because they were Brahmins and the petitioner was a Thakur and thus belonged to two different castes. In 1940 Kumari Kumudni was, according to the petitioner, married to Sri S. K. Joshi against her will. It is alleged in the petition that Smt. Kumudni and Sri S. K. Joshi never led a happy married life and the former could not extend to the latter feelings of love and affection. Some time after Smt. Kumudni was married to Joshi, the petitioner was also married. The petitioner's case is that Smt. Kumudni told Sri Joshi on occasions more than one that she did not love him and that she loved the petitioner with the result that Sri Joshi ill-treated her. On the evening of 20-8-1955 Smt. Kumudni suddenly came with her children to the petitioner's residence at Mirzapur where he was posted as a Dy. S. P. and stayed with him for some time, after having left a letter for her husband informing him that their married life had not been happy and she had decided to leave him. While she was with the petitioner at Mirzapur some C.I.D. officers were deputed to watch his activities. This, it is said, was done at the instance of some highly placed government officers who were close relations of Sri S. K. Joshi and who had influence with the Inspector General of Police. After staying for sometime with the petitioner Smt, Kumudni left the petitioner's place and came to Allahabad where she filed a suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of her marriage with Sri S. K. Joshi. On 12-9-1955 the petitioner was transferred to Pauri Garhwal by wireless with directions to join there by 15-9-1955. Sometime after joining at Pauri Garhwal the petitioner came to his father's place at Allahabad in order to take his winter clothing where he found Smt. Kumudni staying. During the petitioner's stay at Allahabad one day Smt. Kumudni and the petitioner got burns while Smt. Kumudni was lighting a stove. The petitioner as also Smt. Kumudni were admitted in the Moti Lal Nehru Hospital. The petitioner recovered after a protracted illness but Smt. Kumudni succumbed to the injuries. On 12-4-1956 the petitioner had an interview with the Inspector General of Police, who informed the petitioner that he was being discussed in the Secretariat and either he should resign or face a dismissal. The petitioner did not agree to resign. An enquiry was got made against the petitioner through the Criminal Investigation Department (hereinafter referred to as the C. I. D.). After the petitioner got well from the burn injuries received by him he was not for a long time posted anywhere in spite of reminders. In August 1957 he was posted as a Dy. S. P. at Bareilly. He w.as also not allowed to cross the efficiency bar. According to the petitioner these steps were taken in order to make things difficult for him and make him resign from service. The petitioner however withstood all this but did not resign and ultimately his case was referred to the XI. P. Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal framed the following charges against the petitioner. "(a) You rented a house adjacent to the house of Srimati K. Joshi, Almora, under the name of your brother for May and June, 1955 and lived there for immoral purposes after obtaining leave on misrepresentation of facts. (b) You maneuvered the elopement of Srimati K. Joshi for immoral purposes from her husband's residence at Faizabad on 20-8-1955 and kept her at Mirzapur, Varanasi, Allahabad and Lucknow etc. (c) You admitted to Sri S. K. Joshi, Munsif husband of Srimati K. Joshi, of your love affair with her and also of her stay with you at Mirzapur. (d) You persuaded Srimati S. K. Joshi to file an application in the Court of the City Munsif, Allahabad for the dissolution of her marriage with Sri S. K. Joshi. (e) You are carrying on a love affair with Srimati Kumudni Joshi w/o Sri S. K. Joshi Munsif, then posted at Faizabad and have sexual relations with her. (f) You kept Srimati K. Joshi concealed for the same purpose at several places until she was admitted in the hospital at Allahabad along with you with, severe burns on 11-10-1955 where she subsequently died. (g) You are further charged with failure to discharge your duties properly under Rule 4 (1) (b) of the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, in respect of the period when you were posted as Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, and Pauri Garhwal in 1955 as is evidenced by the following (a) You obtained earned leave for 35 days from 21-5-1955 by misrepresenting facts for immoral purposes. (b) You deliberately avoided disclosure of whereabouts of Srimati K. Joshi to the I. G. and D. I. G. U. P. although you knew where she was at that time." The petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges framed against him, and also urged that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The Tribunal consisted of Sri Shiv Desani, I. C. S. Sri K. P. Mathur, Registrar of the High Court (as he then was) and Sri T. P. Srivastava, Deputy Inspector General of Police who was appointed as an assessor to assist the tribunal. On 26-9-1958 the Tribunal submitted its report to the Government recommending the dismissal of the petitioner from, service after holding several hearings in the case. On these facts the petition has been moved. The prayer in the petition is that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the findings of the Tribunal dated 26-9-1958, the order of the Tribunal dated 21-3-1958 asking the petitioner to submit an explanation and the charge sheet framed against him. It is also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents neither to take into consideration nor to act upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal and not to take any steps against him in pursuance of the proceedings before the Tribunal or in respect of the charges framed and enquired into by the Tribunal.
(2.) Three counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents and a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is not necessary at this stage to mention the allegations made in the counter and rejoinder affidavits. The submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner are mostly those of law. However, if and when necessary I will mention the allegations made in the counter and rejoinder affidavits.
(3.) Though as many as 35 grounds have been taken in the petition learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only the following four : 1. Under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, the petitioner's case could not have been referred to the Tribunal. 2. That the Rules are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. That the Rules are invalid inasmuch as they infringe the provisions of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and also because they are inconsistent with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.;