- (1.) PETITIONER was collection Amin in the service of the Government of U. P. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by charge-sheet, dated February 24, 1983 for misappropriation of fund and interpolation in the Government record. Petitioner submitted his reply on June 23, 1983. Thereafter Vide order, dated October 29, 1983 services of the petitioner were terminated by a simple order on the ground feat his services are no longer required. It is this order of termination, which has been challenged by this writ petition before this Court.
(2.) SERIOUS charges of embezzlement and interpolation in the Government record were levelled against the petitioner by charge-sheet dated 24. 2. 1983. These were the charges which required investigation and Government rightly instituted a full fledged disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. However, without concluding this inquiry an innocuous order of termination was passed, which was not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. Although the order of termination is an innocuous order but it has to be read along with the preceding circumstances. In our opinion the circumstances of the case establish that serious charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner by the charge-sheet, dated 24. 2. 1983 is the foundation for terminating the services of the petitioner by the impugned order. In Anoop Jaiswul v. Government of India and another,1984 (48) F. L. R. 258 (S. C. ). employee in the middle of the probationary period was called upon to explain the alleged act of. indiscipline and after he had submitted the explanation, he was discharged from service. The Supreme Court set aside that order on the ground that charge of indiscipline was a foundation or basis for the order of discharge and laid down as under : "even though the order of discharge may be non-committal. It cannot stand alone. Though the noting in the file of the Government may be irrelevant, the cause for the order cannot be ignored. The recommendation of the Director which is the basis or foundation for the order should be read along with the order for the purpose of determining the true character. If on reading the two together the Court reaches the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for that incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground as the appellant has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided in Article 311, of the constitution. "
(3.) AGAIN in the case of Nepal Singh v. State of V. P. and others 1985 (50) F. L. R. 77 (S. C.)the Supreme Court observed that when the inquiry against a charge of misconduct was dropped and the allegation remained unverified, it is not open to the Government not to proceed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution by passing an ex facie innocuous order. The relevant passage of the judgment is extracted below : "with the dropping of the enquiry the allegation remained unverified. We may observe that where allegations as misconduct are levelled against a Government servant, and it is a case where the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution should be applied, it is not open to the competent authority to take the view that holding the enquiry! contemplated by that clause would be a bother or a nuisance and that therefore, it is entitled to avoid the mandate of that provision and resort to the guise of an ex facie innocuous termination order. The court will view with great disfavour any attempt to circumvent the constitutional provision of Article 311 (2) in a case where that provision comes into play. ";