Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) Ram Krishna, the respondent, was officiating Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Works Circle, Faizabad, when on October 4, 1967, he was suspended pending enquiry into certain charges. A charge-sheet was served on him on November 29, 1967. The enquiring officer in his report dated February 29, 1968, held that the charges had not been proved. The State Government, however, did not agree with the finding and decided that the respondent should be warned and an adverse entry should be made in his character roll. It was also decided to revert him to his substantive post of Executive Engineer. To this end a show cause notice was issued to him.
(2.) At this stage the State Government served upon the respondent two further charge-sheets on July 24, 1968. Shri O. D. Sharma, the Additional Chief Engineer, was appointed to enquire into these charges. He conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the State Government. The enquiring officer reported that none of the charges had been proved. The State Government examined the matter and came to a contrary conclusion. It decided that dismissal from service was the appropriate punishment. Accordingly on 16th October, 1969, it served a notice upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent submitted his reply on 15th November, 1969. While the matter was pending decision before the State Government, the respondent on 19th January, 1970, made a representation to the State Government in which he stated that he was a gazetted officer under the Government of U.P. and was entitled to demand that tire enquiry into the charges against him be referred to the U.P. Administrative Tribunal. In the prayer clause it was mentioned that if in the opinion of the Government the written statement does not demolish the charges, then the charges be referred to the U. P. Administrative Tribunal for a full and formal enquiry. The State Government, however, did not consider it feasible to refer the matter and so it ultimately passed an order dismissing the respondent from service on 23rd June, 1972.
(3.) The respondent challenged the order of dismissal by way of a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that it was not necessary to go into the question whether the charges had been established and the order of punishment was legal, because the petition had to succeed on another ground. The learned Judge held that under Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 it was incumbent upon the Government to refer the case of a Government servant who is covered by Rule 4 (1) to the Administrative Tribunal for enquiry. In this case the respondent did specifically make a request for reference. The Governor had no power to refuse the request. In support, reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court Decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 S.C. 1618 . On this view the writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was quashed. Aggrieved, the State Government has come up in appeal.;