UMESHWAR PANDCY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Sant Prasad Pandey, has challenged the impugned judgment and order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) dated 5.9.1981 and order of the appellate authority (D.I.G.) dated 22.1.1979 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) and the order of punishing authority, S.S.P., dated 23.12.1977 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) and has prayed for quashing the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. He has also prayed for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to reinstate him in the service as constable in U. P. Civil Police.
(2.) AS the brief facts of the case, disclosed in the petition, the petitioner while posted as civil police constable in District Lucknow, U.P., was placed under suspension vide order dated 22/27.4.1977 by respondent No. 4, S.S.P., Lucknow. The following three fold of charges were framed against him : (1) That he was keeping one Sita Devi D/o Smt. Kamla Devi as his wife having illicit connection with her in the life time of legally wedded wife. (2) That he was continuing on unauthorised absence since 9.4.1977 without obtaining any leave or permission. (3) That in order to Justify his absence he gave a false application. An officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer and served the charges on the petitioner and required him to show cause. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges to the Enquiry Officer on 23.5.1977 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition). Thereafter the Enquiry Officer, Rajveer Singh, completed the enquiry in accordance with procedure and submitted his report dated 2.8.1977 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) to the punishing authority (S.S.P., Lucknow). The second show cause notice dated 22.10.1977 (Annexure -10 to the writ petition) was served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 4, to which he submitted his reply (Annexure -11 to the writ petition). Respondent No. 4 thereafter having considered the entire material on record, the facts and circumstances found that the objections raised in the reply of the petitioner against the enquiry report in the case had no basis and, therefore, the petitioner was again called upon to show cause vide Annexure -12 dated 6.11.1977, as to why the proposed punishment in pursuance to the enquiry should not be awarded against him. To this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure -13 to the writ petition) dated 15.11.1977. After considering this reply and the entire material available before him, the punishing authority, (respondent No. 4), passed the order of punishment dated 23.12.1977 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) holding that since the charges aforesaid 2 and 3 had been fully established against him and charge No. 1 was also partially proved against him, he was liable for dismissal from the service. Against this order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow, respondent No. 5, which too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.1.1979 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition). Thereafter the petitioner preferred a claim petition against the aforesaid two orders before respondent No. 1, U. P. State Public Services Tribunal and on getting no relief from there also, he had to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) WE have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Singh on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel, Sri Abhinav Upadhyay for the respondents.;