- (1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner joined the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial) in the year 1952. He was posted as a Munsif and worked as such till the year 1960. He was. however confirmed as a Munsif in the year 1954. He was then promoted as Civil Judge in the year 1960. While the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge at Kheri he was placed under suspension on 13-10-1969 as per order of the Court, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner was served with a letter dated 25-6-1970 which contained a charge-sheet. This letter was sent by Administrative Tribunal No. 1 constituted under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 and he was required to furnish an explanation within one month of the receipt of the charge-sheet. It appears from the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 that the Government of U. P. had written to the High Court on 31-7-1967 seeking concurrence of the Court to hand over the matter to the vigilance department to enable the Government to collect material against the petitioner. A similar request was made by the Government on 6-2-1963. The High Court informed the Government by letter dated 31-5-1968 that the matter against the petitioner had been referred to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter on 28-8-1969 the High Court sent to the State Government copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell stating that on examining the said report the High Court was of the view that the case of the petitioner should be made over to the Administrative Tribunal and he should be suspended pending inquiry by the Tribunal. It is thus that the petitioner was placed under suspension and the matter was referred to the Administrative Tribunal by the Governor and thereupon a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner.
(2.) Proceedings in the case were then taken by the Administrative Tribunal which ultimately submitted its report dated 29-6-1971 along with Annexure F to the counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. This report was sent by the Tribunal along with its letter of date, recommending that the petitioner 'be awarded punishment of dismissal from service'. A copy of the letter Annexure F was also sent by the Government to the High Court along with the report of the Tribunal for its opinion. In reply to that letter the Additional Registrar of the High Court by his letter dated 16-10-1971 (Annexure B) informed the Government that the Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal. The petitioner was then served with a show cause notice on 12-11-1971. The petitioner submitted his reply on 17-1-1972. Finally, the order of dismissal was made by the Governor on 27-5-1972 vide Annexure 13. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the said order Annexure .13 to the writ petition and also a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 not to implement and execute the said order.
(3.) For the petitioner three points were urged before me. First, the petitioner was in' judicial service and was under the control of the High Court. The disciplinary proceedings were however not initiated by the High Court hence the same were bad in law. Consequently the order dismissing the petitioner from service was illegal and void. Secondly, the petitioner had requested the Administrative Tribunal to permit him legal assistance of a trained lawyer for the purpose of examination and cross-examination of witnesses, but the Administrative Tribunal relying on Rule 7 of U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 refused that assistance to the petitioner. The petitioner was thus denied a reasonable opportunity of defence. It was urged that the said Rule 7, relied upon by the Administrative Tribunal, was ultra vires. Thirdly, the findings of the Administrative Tribunal were based on no evidence. I shall deal with these points in seriatim.;