R.L.Gulati, J - (1.) The petitioner, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha belongs to the U.P. Education Service. From July, 1963 to May, 1964, he was officiating as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh. During this period several complaints were received from the Commissioner, Kumaon and Utterakhand Division, Nainital, making certain serious allegations of moral turpitude against him. Some adverse reports also appeared against him in a local weekly newspaper called "Bigul". On receipt of these adverse reports, the case was handed over to the C.I.D. for investigation and ultimately the Government referred the case to the U.P. Administrative Tribunal. As a result of the investigation carried out by the C.I.D. it appeared that the petitioner had been indulging in sex with certain lady teachers when he went to visit their schools in his official capacity and had acquired a bad reputation on that account. It also transpired that in order to achieve that objective, he had been misusing his official position.
(2.) In July, 1966, the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Deputy Director (Services) Directorate of Education, U.P. enclosing a charge sheet dated June 13, 1966, from Sri Ahmad Mirza, one of the Members of the U.P. Administrative Tribunal. In the course the hearing of the case commenced before the Administrative Tribunal which was constituted by Sri S. N. Mitra, as Administrative Member, Sri Ahmad Mirza, as judicial Member and Sri S. D. Pant, as the Assessor. In due course the Tribunal submitted its report to the Governor to the effect that the petitioner had been found guilty of the charge of personal immorality as also of failure to discharge his duties properly. In accordance with the recommendations made by the Tribunal, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated March 17, 1969. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal in this petition.
(3.) The charge-sheet served upon the petitioner containes as many as eight charges. Under each charge several incidents have been mentioned. All the eight charges, however, relate, to the main two charges of personal immorality and of failure to discharge duties properly. Under each charge documentary evidence and the gist of oral evidence upon which the charges were based were also communicated to the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the charges as set out in the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The charges were:- "Charge No. 1. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, during the period from July, 1963 to May, 1964, indulged in vicious habits relating to sex, had a bad reputation in this regard and misused your official position in furtherance of your above object by calling lady teachers to your places of stay during your official tours, even at odd hours of the night and persuaded some of them to accompany you on tours, as is evidenced by the following:- (a) You visited Baluwakote on January 20, 1964 stayed there in the P. W. D. Inspection House, till 10 a.m. on January 21, 1964, and during the said stay, you called Km. Motima, daughter of Sri Dhani Ram of Baluwakote, through one Gopal Dutt a teacher of the same place, first in the day and then in the night time and promised to get her admitted in class IV and to help her further in securing a certificate of class V also in the same year to enable her to get a job, and committed sexual intercourse with her. (b) You made five visits to Berinag, ostensibly to inspect the schools, i.e. on September 8 and 13, November 6, 1963, and February 11 and April 24, 1964 where you used to call Km. Bhagwati Verma, a lady teacher of Government Girls Primary School, Kanera at the place of your stay during day as well as night and developed illicit intimacy with her. Further you on November 8, 1963, took her to Pithoragarh from Berinag in your Government jeep. (c) You visited Munshiari on October 9 and 10, 1963 and while staying there in the Inspection House, you called Km. Maya Shah, Head Mistress, of Government Girls' Junior High School, Munshiari, and detained her till late in the night on October 9, 1963, and further when Sri M.C. Pant, Sub. Dy. Inspector of Schools, Munshiari, pointed out to you that it was getting late you allowed the said Km. Maya Shah to go back in the company of Sri S.C. Chaturvedi, Dy. Inspector of Schools, and Sri Mohan Chandra Pant, Sub-Dy. Inspector of Schools, but asked her to visit you again in the night. (d) On February 10, 1964, in the afternoon, while you were staying at the Government Girls' Primary School, Didihat, you were seen in flirting position with Km. Godawari, an Asstt. Lady Teacher of that School, inside your room with bolted doors and you detained her till about 9 p.m. on that date. Further, on February 11, 1964, i.e. the next day, you took her in Government jeep upto Thal, her native place. Further, during said stay at the Government Girls' Primary School, Didihat, between February 8 and 10, 1964, you called lady teachers of Government Girls Primary Schools, Doonagote and Didihat for inspection of the registers during day time but detained them till late in the night. You also sent for on the same occasion Km. Malti, Head Mistress, Government Girls' Primary School, Didihat, at odd hours of the night to which she protested. (e) On January 16, 1964, while you stayed in Government Girls' Primary School, Kanalichhina, you sent for Smt. Deepa Joshi, lady teacher of that school, at night but she declined to visit you on account of your bad reputation. (f) While you were staying in Forest Rest House, Berinag, between February 11 and 16, 1964, for inspection of Government Girls' Junior, High School, you called Smt. Kusum Bisht, Head Mistress of the said school, at odd hours of the night at the place of your stay but she refused to go to you in the night owing to your bad reputation. (g) While staying in P.W.D. Inspection House, Dharchula, from January 21 to 30, 1964 you called Smt. Deoki Devi, daughter of Shri Hari Ram, a teacher in District Board School, Kuti at Dharchula, in the night but she refused to go to you in the night on account of your unsavoury reputation. (h) During your posting at Pithoragarh, on several occasion, you asked Km. Munni Mashiwval, the Assistant Inspectress of Girls School, Pithoragarh to accompany you on tours but she refused to do so on account of your unbecoming attitude. (i) Between February 1 and April 15, 1964 you gave a dinner to Km. Maya Shah at your residence at Pithoragarh and also sent for Km. Kamla Chilkuti, the only other guest for the said dinner at your residence, but Km. Kamla Chilkuti declined to come for dinner. You are hereby charged with 'personal immorality' as defined in Rule 2 (e) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 2. You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, misused your authority and got one Km. Motima, daughter of Shri Dhani Ram of Baluwakote, admitted in class IV in Government Primary School, Nagtar, on February 1, 1964, although she had not passed even class III, as a motive or reward for her having indulged in sexual intercourse with you. You are hereby charged with failure to discharge your duties properly as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 3. You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your illicit relations with Km. Bhagwati Verma, a lady teacher, of Government Girls Primary School, Kanera, misused your position and authority by passing a false T.A. Bill, prepared by her for the period from November 7, 1963 to November 13, 1963, in which she had shown her journey from Berinag to Pithoragarh partly on foot and partly by bus, on November 8, 1963, when in fact, you had yourself taken her from Berinag to Pithoragarh on that day in your Government Jeep. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal). Rules, 1947. Charge No. 4. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your lustful leanings towards Km. Maya Shah, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Munshiari, misused your position and authority, on February 5, 1964, issued an appointement order No. 186/V-7/HC, Promoting the said Km. Maya Shah as temporary officiating Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools, Pithoragarh, with effect from February 1, 1964, by superseding two senior and more qualified Head Mistresses eligible for officiating promotion. Further, in spite of disapproval of this arrangement by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Bareilly, vide her letter No. E-6739/V-S (AIG)/1963-64, dated February 13, 1964, you allowed Km. Maya Shah, to continue in the same capacity till April 15, 1964. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly', as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 5. You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your being displeased with Smt. Deepa Joshi, a lady teacher of Government Girls, Primary Schools, Kanalichhina, who had refused to go to you on the night of January 16, 1964, in Government Girls' Primary School, Kanalichhina, where you were then staying misused your position and authority and transferred her to Deolali Bora, a place in the remote interior, whereupon she resigned from her post. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 6. "You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of the refusal of Smt. Kusum Bisht, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Berinag, to visit you at odd hours of the night during your stay in Forest Rest House, Berinag, between February 11 and 16, 1964, made improper use of your authority and showed annoyance towards said Smt. Kusum Bisht, as a result of which she resigned from her post. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 7. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh during the period from July, 1963, to December, 1963 on several occasions, asked Km. Munni Mashiwal, the Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools, Pithoragarh, to accompany you on tours and, on her refusing to do so, made improper use of your authority and threatened to report against the said Km. Munni Mashiwal, and as a result of your unbecoming attitude, she resigned from her post. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2(d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 8. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, between February 1, 1964 and April 15, 1964, misused your position and authority by utilising the Government jeep to bring Km. Kamla Chilkuti, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Joonagote, Pithoragarli, to join dinner which you had arranged for Km. Maya Shah, Assistant Inspectress of Girls schools, Pithoragarh. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947." After the evidence had been recorded, the Tribunal found that incidents mentioned in clause (a) of Charge No. 1 had been fully proved, whereas the incidents mentioned at clauses (c) and (d) of that charge had been partly proved. The rest of the incidents were not established. Likewise out of the remaining charges, Charges Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were found to have been partly proved that the rest of the charges were found not to have been proved. On the basis of the incidents that had been proved against the petitioner, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty both of personal immorality as well as of failure to discharge his duties properly.;