S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) -Feeling aggrieved by the imposition of a major penalty of removal from service by the State Government accepting the recommendations of the High Court made in this regard after holding a regular disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, who was found guilty of various charges relating to the misconduct, he has now approached this Court seeking redress, praying for the quashing of the order dated 15.2.2002 issued by the State Government and for his reinstatement in service with all benefits of continuity of service including payment of arrears of salary.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents and have also carefully perused the record. The facts, in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in narrow compass. A charge-sheet dated 1.9.2000 was served on the petitioner commencing regular disciplinary enquiry against him which contained two charges. The first charge was to the effect that the delinquent official had decreed Original Suits No. 639 of 1981, 633 of 1981 and 640 of 1981 against the Kanpur Development Authority by a common judgment and decree, whereby, the lawfully acquired land vesting in Kanpur Development Authority was released from the Land Acquisition Proceedings and the development authority was permanently restrained from demolishing the constructions standing over the plots in dispute and were further restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession thereon. The development authority was also directed to accept an amount of Rs. 20,000 per acre from the plaintiff towards development/ betterment charge and on compliance of the other conditions, release the plot in their favour prohibiting it from transferring the plots in dispute in favour of any other person. The aforesaid action of the delinquent officer was claimed to be in flagrant disregard of the order passed by the High Court on 2.5.1978 while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 1309 of 1969 and was further claimed to be in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act which had resulted in heavy loss to the development authority to the tune of Rs. 10 crores. The aforesaid action, it was claimed, led to a reasonable inference that the delinquent official had been influenced on extraneous consideration and had failed to maintain absolutely integrity and complete devotion to duty and thus, committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of the U. P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1956. The second charge levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that while proceeding with the original suits, referred to hereinabove, he had deleted the relevant and important issues Nos. 2 and 14 which were to the effect as to whether the acquisition regarding the disputed land had been quashed by the High Court or was confirmed and as to whether the disputed land had been acquired under the award No. 33 dated 31.12.1968 and if so its effect. These issues had been framed on 5.9.1983 and 14.5.1996 in Original Suit No. 639 of 1981. This deletion, it was alleged, was with the ulterior motive with a view to give benefit and grant reliefs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Kanpur Development Authority and others. This action, it was claimed, indicated that the delinquent official had failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty and had committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of the U. P. Government Services (Conduct) Rules, 1956.
(3.) IN the disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent official was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself and lead evidence. After considering the defence put in by the delinquent official and the evidence and materials brought on record, the enquiry Judge came to the conclusion that the delinquent official had full knowledge of the fact that the land in suit was the acquired land and the charged officer had attempted to justify release thereof on the hypothesis that the same had not been prohibited by the High Court while disposing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1309 of 1969, decided on 2.5.1978, whereby the award given during the land acquisition proceedings had been upheld. The charged officer, it was pointed out, had justified the release on the strength of a resolution passed by the betterment/ development sub-committee of the Nagar Mahapalika. According to the delinquent officer, the question with regard to the deletion of issue Nos. 2 and 14 were not germane to the controversy. The enquiry Judge had also noticed that in the written arguments submitted by the charged officer, it had been asserted that he had granted the release of the disputed land on the basis of the resolution dated 29.6.1972, passed by the betterment/ development sub-committee of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur as no public purpose existed. According to the charged officer, the land in suit could be released on fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the resolution dated 29.6.1972 and the provisions of Section 5A or Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act were not attracted to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble enquiry Judge relying upon the observations of the various decisions of the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that in the Writ Petition No. 1309 of 1969 besides the prayer for quashing of the award dated 31.12.1968, another relief had also been claimed requiring the respondents therein including Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners on the basis of the scheme under the Kanpur Urban Development Act and the award dated 31.12.1968, the operative portion of the order disposing of the writ petition indicated that the relief to the effect that the respondents to the writ petition be directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid scheme under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act and the award dated 31.12.1968 was refused by the High Court but while decreeing the suit, the charged officer has granted the same relief which had been refused by the High Court on its judicial side. Relying on the observations made in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Virendra Kumar and others, AIR 1995 SC 1955, it was indicated that the civil court could have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The charged officer having admitted that the civil court had no jurisdiction to go into the validity or otherwise of the acquisition, his contention was that he did not set aside the acquisition and had simply released the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of the resolution dated 29.6.1972, which was not sustainable in law and could not be accepted. It was observed that what could not be done directly, could not be permitted to be done indirectly. The release of the land by the judgment and decree of the civil court was not permissible in the absence of any action having been taken under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Hon'ble enquiry Judge was also of the view that the possession of the land had been handed over to the Kanpur Development Authority under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and it was the Kanpur Development Authority which alone had the power to dispose of the land as it ceased to vest in the Municipal Corporation in face of the judgment of the High Court dated 2.5.1978 disposing of the Writ Petition No. 798 of 1969. It was not open to the charged officer to decree the suit for injunction. The learned enquiry Judge drew an inference that the suits had been decreed actuated by oblique motive which could not be eliminated.;