- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal dated 24th April, 1972 passed against the respondent as also all proceedings subsequent to the show cause notice dated 29th July, 1970.
(2.) In outline, the allegations made in the writ petition by the present respondent, Brij Nandan Kansal, were these. Brij Nandan Kansal, respondent, was a member of the U. P. Civil Service. During the period June 1962 and October 1964 he served as a Regional Transport Magistrate, Bareilly. The Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow, served a charge-sheet on him on 24th September, 1968 requiring him to submit his reply. The first charge related to misappropriation of Government money and the charges Nos. 2 to 5 related to four journeys during the period June 1962 to October 1964 alleging that he had travelled without purchasing first class tickets but had charged first class travelling allowance for those journeys. The sixth charge related to charging travelling allowance twice for the same journey. Sri Kansal filed his reply repudiating the charges. Thereafter, the Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties and finally submitted a report on 7th May, 1970 recording a finding that the first charge had not been proved but the other charges had been established. The report of the Tribunal along with its recommendations regarding the penalty to be imposed upon Sri Kansal was sent to the Governor by the Tribunal. Thereupon a show cause notice was given to Sri Kansal on 29th July, 1970 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. A copy of the findings of the Tribunal on the charges was also attached with the show cause notice. Its recommendation with regard to the punishment to be imposed was, however, not sent to Sri Kansal. On 15th December, 1970 Sri Kansal asked for a copy of the recommendation of the Tribunal with regard to the punishment to be imposed and also asked for time upto 31st December, 1970 for filing his written statement. He sent his reply against the show cause notice on 28th December, 1970 in which he pointed out that as he had not been furnished with a copy of the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding the punishment he was being deprived of a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. He, however, made his submissions with regard to the punishment of dismissal which was proposed to be awarded to him in the show cause notice and submitted that the proposed punishment was too severe. The State Government meanwhile sent a letter to Sri Kansal extending the time till 31st December, 1970 for submission of his reply to the show cause notice and also enclosing a copy of the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding the punishment. This letter was delivered to Sri Kansal on 31st December 1970. He made a request for oral hearing which was, however, not acceded to and ultimately an order dated 24th April 1972 was passed dismissing him from service. He then filed a writ petition which has given rise to this appeal challenging the said order of dismissal.
(3.) Before the learned single Judge the order of dismissal was impugned on four grounds, namely, (1) the finding that Sri Kansal had travelled on various dates specified in charges 2 to 5 without purchasing first class tickets was based on no evidence or in any event was arbitrary, (2) reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the punishment was denied to him inasmuch as he was not supplied with the copy of the recommendation of the Tribunal with regard to it before he submitted his reply to the show cause notice, (3) inasmuch as the Governor before passing the impugned order consulted the Administrative Tribunal and also the law department and took into account their opinions before passing the impugned order it was incumbent on the Governor to have made the opinions available to Kansal and should have called a further reply in respect thereof before making the impugned order, and (4) the impugned order was bad inasmuch as it did not give any reasons.;