K.N.Misra, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgement and order dated 7.12.1979 passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal No.III (for short Tribunal) by which the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 Mahendra Nath Singh (for short the claimant) against order dated 25.9.1976 passed by the Director of Agriculture dismissing him from services, as contained in Annexure No. 12 to the claim petition, was allowed and it was left open to the Director of Agriculture to order fresh inquiry into the matter and pass necessary orders. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:- "The claimant was appointed on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector by the Director of Agriculture (for short Director) on 6.8.1958. Against him disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the District Agriculture Officer and he was put under suspension by order dated 1.10.1973 passed by him. A charge sheet was served on the claimant on 27.11.1974 to which he had submitted his reply on 17.12.1974. After conducting inquiry, a detailed report dated 6.4.1975 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Thereupon show cause notice dated 28.6.1975 was issued by the Director, who was the appointing authority, requiring the claimant to submit his reply within 15 days on the receipt of the notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Alongwith the show-cause notice, a copy of the inquiry report was also enclosed. The claimant submitted his reply on 17.7.1975. The Director thereupon passed the impugned order dated 25.9.1976, contained in Annexure No.12 to the claim petition. Against that order the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.1979 on the ground that since the Director was the appointing authority of the claimant, who was appointed in the year 1958, and, as such, the Director alone was empowered to intimate disciplinary proceedings and so the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Agriculture Officer were bad in law and the mere fact that the show cause notice was issued by the Director would not alter the position in any manner. By taking this view it was held that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the order of the dismissal passed by the Director would, thus, stand vitiated. It was further held that the dismissal order passed by the Director also stands vitiated on the ground that the Director had only passed the order on the report of the inquiry officer and had not independently recorded a finding on the charge levelled against the claimant after considering the reply to show cause notice submitted by the claimant. It was also held that the punishing authority is bound to express his opinion on the point raised and a non-speaking order does not meet that requirement. The Tribunal also found that the Government order dated 15.1.1961 does not empower the District Agriculture Officer to suspend a person appointed by the Director and the order of suspension is against C.C.A. Rules as well as Subordinate Agriculture Servants Rules which authorises delegation of power regarding suspension to the next lower authority by the appointing authority or by a general or special order issued by the Government. The claim petition was, thus, allowed. It was, however, left open to the Director to order fresh inquiry into the matter and pass necessary orders."
(2.) Learned state counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that the order passed by the Tribunal is factually and legally incorrect and deserve to be quashed. He urged that disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Agriculture Officer were perfectly valid and the Tribunal has erred in holding that it stands vitiated on the erroneous ground of lack of power in the District Agriculture Officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the members of Subordinate Agriculture Service, Group III to which the claimant belongs. Referring to G.O.No. 3084/XXXV A-129. NES/58 dated June 15, 1961 and G.O.No. A-9529/XII A-1878/61 dated December 25, 1963 (Annexures 3-A and 3-B) learned counsel urged that by said orders the Deputy Directors of Agriculture and District Agriculture Officers have been authorised to initiate disciplinary proceedings against members of Subordinate Agriculture Services Group II and Group III respectively. G.O. dated December 25, 1963 expressly empowered the said officers to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such Group II and Group III officials also who were appointed by the Director of Agriculture. The said Government Order expressly provided that they can take all actions (i.e. frame charge sheet, call for the explanation, give personal hearing and issue show-cause notice) which is necessary in disciplinary proceedings, but they cannot pass final order if the proposed punishment is dismissal or removal. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the District Agriculture Officer could not initiate disciplinary proceedings, against the claimant who was appointed by the Director.
(3.) In reply learned counsel for the claimant urged that delegation of power to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to pass orders of suspension could be made by the appointing authority only to the next lower authority. He urged that the District Agriculture Officer is not the next lower authority to the Director. Referring to 1st proviso to Rule 49-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short C.S.C.C.A. Rules), learned counsel urged that no delegation could be made to District Agriculture Officer for taking disciplinary proceedings and for passing order of suspension against the claimant. He further contended that the aforesaid G.Os. dated 15.6.1961 and 25.12.1963 are invalid and the District Agriculture Officer by these orders cannot be taken to be clothed with the power to take disciplinary proceeding against the claimant. Thus, the suspension order and the entire disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated in law.;