S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) IN the petition in hand, the petitioner who was serving as Assistant Agriculture Inspector and at the relevant time was the Incharge of Seed Store Kopaganj Block in the District of Azamgarh, was placed under suspension by the District Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh by means of an order dated 7 -4 -1976. The departmental enquiry that followed the suspension order, was concluded and the petitioner was removed from service as a consequence thereof vide order dated 12 -9 -1976. Besides removal from service, and recovery of a sum of Rs. 65,866.30 p. was also directed to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner took up the matter to the U.P. Public Service Tribunal III, Lucknow by means of a claim petition, which was decided by order dated 24 -10 -1980 in pursuance of which the order of punishment dated 12 -9 -1978, was set aside by the tribunal with an observation which enabled the department to proceed in the matter afresh. Accordingly, on the conclusion of the enquiry embarked upon afresh by the department, the petitioner was again removed from service by order dated 22 -7 -1987 and he was held entitled to salary other than what was paid to him by way of subsistence allowance and further the period of suspension was directed not to be reckoned towards the service of the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 67085.16 p. was also directed to be recovered from the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal, though it is worded as representation as is evident from Annexure M to the writ petition. He also filed a writ petition, it being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2016 of 1987, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal to the State Government and as the appeal had already been filed on 20th August, 1987, the Court dismissed the petition with the hope and trust that the said appeal filed by the petitioner would be decided and disposed of expeditiously. By means of its order dated 9th August, 1990, the State Government purporting to decide the petitioner's representation/appeal, dismissed the same as having no force. A copy of the order dated 9th August, 1990, has been brought on record of the writ petition as Annexure 'P' by way of an affidavit dated 20th February, 1990. It is the validity of the orders dated 22 -7 -1987 and 9 -8 -1990 which has been challenged in the instant petition and these two orders are sought to be quashed by means of a writ of certiorari. Together with the prayer for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has also prayed for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of Rs. 66085.16 p. from him as arrears of land revenue.
(2.) I have heard Sri V.B. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. To start with I may examine the relevant provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as applicable to the Uttar Pradesh and Rule 56 of the aforesaid Rules as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh, provides appeal against an order of dismissal from service, to the State which ordinarily disqualifies the incumbent from future employment. It also provides appeal against an order of removal from the service of the State which does not disqualify from the future employment. The penalties what may be imposed, are mentioned in Rule 48 of the Rules. Apart from the penalty of removal and dismissal from service, the Rule provides the penalty by way of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. The petitioner as noticed above, has been dismissed from service and recovery of pecuniary loss suffered by the Government has also been ordered.
(3.) RULES 59 and 60 of the Rules being relevant for the purposes of the present case, are being reproduced below for ready reference: 59. In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in Rule 49, the appellate authority shall consider - - (a) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; (b) Whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and after such consideration shall pass such order as it thinks proper. 60. In the case of an appeal against an order under Rule 58, the appellate authority shall pass such order as appears to it just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The appeal, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 'M' to the petition, may not be in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 63 of the Rules, but nevertheless it was an appeal though worded as representation. As a matter of fact, the validity of the order dated 22 -7 -1987, was challenged by means of the appeal/representation dated 20 -8 -1987. The State Government by its cryptic order dated 9th August, 1990 has just dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons and also without considering the points raised in the appeal/representation. Quintessentially, the order exhibits complete non -application of mind. The fact that the appeal was preferred under statutory provisions of law and the fact that it was directed against an order of dismissal from service, disqualifying incumbent from future service, enjoins a duty upon the State Government to pass a reasoned order while disposing of the appeal. Expression "shall pass such order as appears to it just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case" occurring in Rule 60 of the Rules, leads me to conclude that the Government was duty bound to pass a reasoned order in the appeal after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case. This having not been done, the appellate order dated 9th August, 1990, is ex facie illegal, being arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.;