- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the State Government dated February 23, 1972, dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2.) The petitioner was a member of the U. P. Agriculture Service, Junior Scale, and was posted as District Soil Conservation Officer at jhansi and Kanpur. Certain complaints were received against him which were enquired into by the Vigilance Department. After the completion of the preliminary enquiry the matter was referred to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the U. P. Administrative Tribunal (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, On 9th November, 1967 the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal. He was served with a charge sheet containing 44 charges, he submitted his explanation and denied the charges. A full-fledged enquiry was held before the Administrative Tribunal where witnesses were examined and the petitioner was afforded opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses.On completion of the enquiry, the Administrative Tribunal submitted its findings and report to the State Government on 12th March, 1970. There upon the State Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 4th September, 1970, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on the charges proved against him. A copy of the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal was supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. After obtaining the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the State Government issued the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the dismissal order.
(3.) Sri B. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution inasmuch as the recommendations of the Administrative Tribunal in relation to the punishment proposed against the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner could not get opportunity of meeting the same, although the State Government accepted those recommendations and it was thereafter that the show cause notice was issued and the order of dismissal was passed. The necessary averments in this respect have been made by the petitioner in paragraphs 21, 26 and 27. In these paragraphs the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner has come to know that the Administrative Tribunal had made recommendations for awarding punishment to the petitioner separately which was not included in its finding. A copy of the same had been supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The Administrative Tribunal had made its re- commendations about punishment separately. In that letter the Administrative Tribunal re- commended punishment of stoppage of one year's increment in respect of charges 1 and 3 while the Tribunal had recommended the petitioner's dismissal in respect of charge No. 2.;