- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal, dated March 26, 1981 passed against him, contained in Annexure xxiv, mainly on the following grounds (1) No loss of public exchequer by the petitioner was caused,. hence relying on Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and othersd,1983 (47) F. L. R. 95. it was argued that the penalty imposed upon, is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and the penalty was disproportionate to the gravity of alleged misconduct and hence the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (2) The Enquiry Report indicates that although the charge No. 2 contained in the first charge-sheet was not proved against the petitioner and he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer but on a similar charge contained in the third charge-sheet, that is charge No. 1 (5)the petitioner was found guilty. (3) The Enquiry Report indicates that the Enquiry Officer relied upon the statement of Sri Brij vir Singh against whom an enquiry was also conducted for the same allegations but he was not awarded any punishment. (4) The Enquiry Officer relied. ,upon the statement of Sri Brij Vir singh who bore enmity against the petitioner for the reason of the fact that the petitioner had given adverse entry against him and at the instance of the petitioner the continuity of his services was broken.
(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Principal of the Industrial Training institute, Pratapgarh with effect from December 28, 1962 and his appointment was approved by the Public Service Commission in- Class II during 1964-65. Thereafter he worked as the Principal of Industrial Training institute, Meerut in July, 1965 and was recruited to the State training service 'class I after approval by U. ' P. Public Service Commission on january 21, 1966. In 1966 a piston set was urgently required for a Diesel tractor belonging to the institute. In (accordance with the procedure prescribed, tenders were invited for an English Piston. Quotations - were received, and after preparing a comparative chart the tender of M /s. A. V. Sales Corporation for Rs. 781/- was found lowest and this was accepted. On an anonymous complaint a charge-sheet containing three charges was communicated to the petitioner on September 30, 1972 by the administrative Tribunal (II) created under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. These charges relate to the period when the petitioner was working as Principal, Industrial Training institute, Meerut. Subsequently, three more charges were framed by the department. While the proceedings were pending before the Administrative Tribunal a third charge-sheet was communicated bo the petitioner vide letter, dated July 24, 1973. It was averred that the first three items of the third charge-sheet were identical to charge No. 3 communicated in the first charge-sheet. Only item Nos. 4 and 5 have been newly added and the petitioner was found guilty and - removed only on charge No. 1 (v) of the third charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted replies to all these charges. One Brij Vir Singh was also co-accused in inquiry before the Administrative Tribunal. The prosecution indicated nine witnesses to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. None of the witnesses had deposed against the petitioner except Brij Vir Singh who was on inimical terms with the petitioner and was also co-accused along with the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice in which the petitioner was required to submit his explanation only with regard to charge No. 1 (v) of the third charge-sheet. One of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the first charge-sheet which is relevant for the purpose, is charge No. 3. The said charge reads as under : "you, Sri Jamil Ahmad, while posted as Principal, I. T. I. , meerut, during the period from May 6, 1966 to May 6, 1968 failed to discharge your duties properly in dealing with the purchase of a piston set from M/s. A. V. Sales Corporation, Meerut, causing loss to government inasmuch as : (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) You purchased the aforesaid piston set for Rs. 710/- (exeluding sales tax of Rs. 71/-) from M/s. A. V. Sales Corporation meerut, ignoring the lower rates of Rs. 675/- quoted for this article by M/s. Ravi Motors, Meerut, thereby causing loss to the Government. "
(3.) THE charge on which the removal order was passed against the petitioner given in the third charge-sheet, that is charge No. 1 (v), reads as under "you had shown Rs. 781/- as the price of English piston for the use of the official tractor when in reality you purchased an indigenous piston set the price of which was not more than Rs. 200/- and thus you caused an estimated loss of Rs. 581/- ";