K.L. Sharma, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated November 3, 1986 passed by the opposite party No. 2, annexure- 1 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service from the post of Head Clerk to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rae Bareli. The petitioner, has therefore, prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated November 3, 1986 and for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to continue the petitioner in service and pay him the arrears of salary and allowances which accrued due to him.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Ahalmad in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rae Bareli by the Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow vide. letter dated November 17, 1955 and the petitioner accordingly joined the office in the forenoon of November 28, 1955. On May 25, 1961, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk and since then, he was working on the said post till the impugned order of his dismissal from service was passed on November 3, 1986. In the year 1957, the Office of the erstwhile Land Reforms Commissioner, was reorganised and constituted as the Board of Revenue, which became the appointing authority of the petitioner. The administrative control of the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the District Head Quarters was delegated to the Collector of the District concerned subject to the general supervision of the Commissioner of the Division vide Government Order dated October 30, 1957, annexure-2 to the writ petition. The opposite party No.2 chargesheeted the petitioner on October 16, 1985 and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the chargesheet and also requested that if the signatures are doubted, they may be sent for verification to the handwriting expert. The District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, appointed the City Magistrate Rae Bareli as the inquiry officer who recorded the statements of several witnesses but did not record the statement of one Bhupendra Vikram Singh, the Special Land Acquisition Officer Rae Bare li and recorded the finding of guilt against the petitioner. By a letter dated February 13, 1986, an additional charge was also levelled against the petitioner. The inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty also of the additional charge. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the opposite party No. 2 passed the impugned order on November 3, 1986 dismissing the petitioner from the post of Head Clerk in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner did not, however, file an appeal, against this impugned order of dismissal to the Divisional Commissioner for the reason that it was wholly non-efficacious since the Appellate Authority has no power to grant a stay. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order of dismissal on the ground that the opposite party No. 2 was not his appointing authority and was inferior and subordinate to his appointing authority namely, the Land Reforms Commissioner and presently, the Board of Revenue and that by subsequent delegation of the power of appointing authority to the District Magistrate, the appointing authority of the petitioner was not legally changed.
(3.) On an application for interim relief, this Court was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition and further, ordered that the petitioner shall be paid his further salary henceforth regularly, but it will, however, be open to the opposite parties to take or not to take work from the petitioner.;