RAM NARESH LALL RAM YASH LALL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-16
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on November 17,1965

RAM NARESH LALL RAM YASH LALL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DR. K. SUBBA RAO V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
T. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR V. COLLECTOR OF SALT REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VERMA VS. R D VERMA [REFERRED TO]
NRIPENDRA NATH BAGCHI VS. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BHAGAT RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1968-3-9] [REFERRED]
ANANDRAM JIANDRAL VASWANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1982-6-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner was appointed as a temporary accounts supervisor in the Agriculture Department in the scale of Rs. 60 - 4 - 80 - 4 - 100 by the Director of Agriculture on 26 March, 1947, and was posted under the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Eastern Circle, Pratapgarh, where he joined his duties on 1 April, 1947. Thereafter by an order dated 15 February, 1949, he was transferred to the Agricultural
(2.)ENGINEERING Department as a temporary assistant accountant by the Director of Agriculture and was posted under the Agricultural Engineer (Tractors), Lucknow, of which post he took charge on 19 February, 1949. By an order of the Chief Agricultural Engineer, Kanpur, dated 9 January, 1952, the petitioner was provisionally confirmed on a permanent pensionable post of accounts supervisor with effect from 11 July, 1949, by the order dated 9 January, 1952. The Agricultural Engineering Department was abolished on 24 August, 1952 and was merged in the Irrigation Department known as the Agricultural Engineering Circle of the Irrigation Department being in charge of a Superintending Engineer. On 29 June, 1954 under orders of the Agricultural Engineer (Tractors), Lucknow, under whom the petitioner was serving, he was transferred on deputation as an assistant accountant to the office of the Development Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, respondent 2, in the Planning Department. He actually took charge of this post on 30 July, 1954 (not on 28 July, 1954 as stated in Para. 5 of the petition). On 9 September, 1955, while he was on deputation, he was confirmed by an order of the Superintending Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Circle, which later on came to be designated as Irrigation Workshop Circle, Kanpur, on a permanent pensionable post of junior clerk sanctioned in the Irrigation Department by a certain Government order dated 20 April, 1955, in the scale of Rs. 60 - 4 - 100 - 5 - 120 with effect from 1 April, 1955. Respondent 2 under whom he was working on deputation, by an order dated 31 May, 1957, assigned to him the temporary post of the senior clerk in the scale of Rs. 80 - 6 - 110 - 6 - 140 - 10 - 200 - 20 - 240 in the Minor Irrigation Section of his office with effect from 1 April, 1957.
Respondent 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, issued a Government order on 21 May, 1958, directing respondent 2, the Development Commissioner, to give the staff on deputation from the Irrigation Department and working under him for the execution of minor irrigation schemes, the option to elect their permanent transfer in the Planning Department or to go back to their parent department, namely, the Irrigation Department. He was further directed to issue a fresh order of appointment in respect of the staff who might elect to remain in the Planning Department. In compliance with that order the Deputy Development Commissioner (Technical) by a circular dated 7 July, 1958, addressed to all Additional District Magistrates (Planning) and District Planning Officers and the officers and the staff posted at headquarters including the petitioner, invited their option and requested them to fill up and sign the form of election attached to the said circular letter. A copy of the circular letter is to be found in annexure III and a form is attached to it. The form shows that the option that was to be exercised by the officials on deputation was whether they elected to be transferred in the planning set-up and reappointed by the Development Commissioner or to go back to their parent department. The petitioner then exercised his option and elected to be transferred to the Planning Department and to be reappointed by respondent 2 but respondent 2 did not issue any order reappointing him in the Planning Department. He accordingly claims that he continued to hold lien on his permanent post in the Irrigation Workshop Circle of the Irrigation Department. Later on, however, the petitioner was transferred by respondent 2 by an order dated 7 April, 1960, issued under the signature of the Assistant Development Commissioner (Headquarters) from Minor Irrigation Section to Establishment II Section in the office of respondent 2. Certain complaints then seem to have been made against the petitioner, with the result that by an order purporting to have been made by the Development Commissioner, respondent 2, dated 18 August, 1960, he was suspended. The office-order itself has been signed by one Sri. S. Dikshit; Additional Development Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, though it mentions that the Development Commissioner has ordered the suspension of the petitioner and one Sri R. R. Gupta. A copy of that order was forwarded to him under the signature of the Deputy Development Commissioner who signed for the Additional Development Commissioner and in the endorsement it was mentioned that he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The order and the endorsement are to be found in annexure V. Thereafter a chargesheet was served on the petitioner which is dated 3 September, 1960, contained in annexure VI. The petitioner filed a written statement to the chargesheet.

(3.)THE enquiry then started in connexion with that charge, the enquiry officer being the Assistant Development Commissioner, on 28 November, 1960. But on 25 November, 1960, the petitioner made an application to the enquiry officer to the effect that as one of the witnesses was the Deputy Development Commissioner (Administration), he may be given permission to cross-examine him through a lawyer on account of the petitioner's diffidence as a subordinate to cross-examine his superior officer. This application of his was rejected, the order as to which was communicated to him on 28 November, 1960, though the contention of the petitioner which is denied is that the orders themselves where passed on that date. The case of the respondents, however, is that the orders were passed on 25 November, 1960, but their communication on 28 November, 1960, is not denied. On 28 November, 1960, on the dismissal of his application, he was asked to cross-examine the Deputy Development Commissioner (Administration), but he could not undertake the cross-examination. He made another application on 29 November, 1960, for permission to cross-examine the Deputy Development Commissioner (Administration) through a lawyer, but that too was rejected. Then a third application was moved on 2 December, 1960, but that also received the same fate. He was then served a notice on 23 February, 1961, to show cause and a copy of the enquiry report, dated 20 January, 1961, also was served on him. The show-cause notice was to the effect as to why he should not be dismissed from service. He gave a reply to that notice, but on 29 July, 1961, an order was passed by respondent 2 which was served on the petitioner on 31 July, 1961, that he was dismissed from service. This order was passed by Development Commissioner. The petitioner then made an appeal to the Government, respondent 1, and through the office memorandum, dated 19 January, 1963, which he received on 22 January, 1963, he was informed that his appeal had been rejected by the Government. No copy of the original order of the Government was served on him prior to his filing of the writ petition which he did on 30 April, 1963, but he did receive a copy later on the order of the Government dismissing his appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.