- (1.) This special appeal arises at the instance of Ghirrao Lal Srivastava against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8-2-1972 dismissing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed by Ghirrao Lal Srivastava. The appellant came to this Court with the case that he was appointed a Lekhpal by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Nawabganj, in the district of Barabanki in the year 1953. One Ramdeo filed complaints (Annexures 3 and 4 of the petition) against Hari Krishna Bajpai Naib Tahsildar and Naumi Lal Collection Amin. These complaints were entrusted by the Sub- Divisional Officer to Mr. Chauhan, Tahsildar for enquiry but the Tahsildar forwarded the complaints to Hari Krishna Bajpai, Naib Tahsildar, for enquiry and report. The Naib Tahsildar submitted his report dated 16-11-1967 to the Tahsildar (Annexure 7) containing the finding that the complaints were unfounded so far as he personally concerned and that in the course of enquiry be had found that Ghirrao Lal Srivastava and Sattan Lal Pradhan of the village, were guilty of taking 'Begar' from the villagers. He recommended that a police enquiry may be made aganist the conduct of the appellant Lekhpal. On the basis solely of this report of the Naib Tahsildar the Tahsildar submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner on 18-11-1967 with the recommendation that the Lekhpal be placed under suspension immediately and a thorough enquiry may be made into the allegations made against him by the Naib Tahsildar. Thereafter the appellant was served with a charge-sheet dated 25-1-1968 by the Tahsildar.
(2.) It was, subsequently discovered that the Tahsildar was not punishing authority of the Lekhpals and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner by a subsequent order passed in November, 1968, directed enquiry against the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer himself. A fresh charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 2-12-1968 by the Sub-Divisional Officer containing eight charges. The appellant furnished an explanation through a written statement and also made a request in the written statement that Shyama Charan , Shukla, Shambhu, Sukkur, Jai Ram and Ram Deo may be called for cross examination. In the course of enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer only five witnesses were produced, namely, Shyama Charan Shukla, Kanungo. Jai Ram, Shambhu, Ram Deo and Sukkur and they were also subjected to cross-examination by the appellant. Hari Krishna Bajpai, Naib Tahsildar, Mr. Chauhan, Tahsildar, Naumi Lal Collection Amin and Devi Dayal Lekhpal were not called in the enquiry before the Sub- Divisional Officer nor was an opportunity of cross-examining them afforded to the appellant. The Sub-Divisional Officer held all the charges proved except charge No. 7 and by his order dated 1-4-1969 ordered dismissal of the appellant with effect from the date of his suspension This order was questioned by the appellant in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner but the appeal was dismissed and after this the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 before this Court praying that the order of dismissal passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in appeal may be quashed by certiorari. This petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge and, therefore this appeal.
(3.) We have heard Sri K. K. K.Nayar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K. S. Verma, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the appellant made two points before us First, that the Sub- Divisional Officer did not follow the principles of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant and, secondly, that the enquiry was vitiated by the fact that it was based on the report of the Naib Tahsildar who was maliciously disposed towards the appellant and levelled certain unfounded accusations against him.;