Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.1988 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal- I, Lucknow in claim petition No. 554/1/1985 (Sri Krishna Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and the order of dismissal dated 27.12.1983 as also the order dated 27.9.1982. The petitioner has further claimed for a declaration that he is continuing in service and is entitled to his salary and emoluments.
(2.) It is the case of the petition that he was appointed as Lekhpal in the year 1953 and was subsequently promoted as Supervisor Kanoongo in the year 1960. The respondent No. 4 who was Collector of Mainpuri at the relevant time is alleged to have been biased against the petitioner and therefore awarded four adverse entries which were however expunged. On 27.9.1982 the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry on various allegations by the respondent No. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not paid subsistence allowance inspite of repeated demands and that a criminal case under Section 409 IPC was filed against the petitioner but the said proceedings were quashed in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1986 from the court of V Add. District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. No charge sheet was served on the petitioner and the publication of notice was made in an insignificant news paper only so that the petitioner may not be able to meet out the charges and exparte enquiry may be conducted against him. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner but by ignoring the same the order of dismissal dated 27.12.1983 was passed. He has filed the claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal supported with an affidavit and although no reply was filed by the respondents the Tribunal has proceeded to illegally dismiss the claim petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was working in stop gap arrangement as Supervisor Kanoongo on the date he was suspended. The order of suspension was passed in contemplation of departmental enquiry for serious financial irregularity whereupon the charge sheet was prepared which was not accepted by the petitioner. A notice was published in the news paper Dainik Jagaran on 2.12.1983 since the petitioner had not participated in the departmental enquiry the Enquiry Officer had given his report finding all the charges proved. It is the case of the respondents that show cause notice was also served upon the petitioner personally but the petitioner did not file his reply, consequently, the authority has proceeded to pass the order dated 27.12.1983 dismissing the petitioner from service. The FIR lodged against the petitioner was because he was absconding and not handing over the charge after his suspension. It has been stated that during his suspension period the petitioner never attended Tahsil head quarter nor he produced any certificate as required by the suspension order for payment of subsistence allowance to him. Since he absconded himself without handing over charge therefore it is alleged that the petitioner is himself to blame for not availing the opportunity afforded to him at the stage of disciplinary proceeding.;