A.N.Varma - (1.) -This petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others is directed against the order dated August 25, 1981 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (III), Lucknow, allowing a claim petition filed by Ram Singh, the first respondent, against the order of dismissal passed by the Director of Agriculture on February 7, 1977.
(2.) THE respondent no. 1 was appointed as a member of the U. P. Subordinate Agriculture Service, Group III, on temporary basis under an order dated June 13, 1968 of the Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration), U. P. and pursuant to that order he joined the service at Etah by the order of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Agra Region, on July 3, 1968. He continued in that post till his services were terminated under the aforesaid order of dismissal passed by the Director of Agriculture. On April 13, 1970 he was placed under suspension by an order of the District Agriculture Officer, Etah, on complaints of alleged embezzlement. THE matter was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, Etah, who directed that the godown where the respondent no. 1 was working be checked. On checking it is alleged a shortage of stock worth Rs. 22,832.48 was detected. THE account books were also found missing whereupon a report was lodged with Police Station Aliganj. After investigations the police submitted before the Magistrate concerned a charge sheet against the respondent no. 1 containing allegations of criminal misappropriation. THEse events led to initiation of departmental proceedings against the said respondent by the District Agriculture Officer with the serving of a charge sheet on respondent no. 1 on April 21, 1974. No reply was, however, submitted by the respondent no 1. It may be mentioned here that the District Agriculture Officer had, by that time been designated as the appointing authority in respect of the employees of the rank of the respondent no. 1 belonging to the said Subordinate Agriculture Service, Group III. Departmental proceedings were thereupon held by the District Agriculture Officer who submitted his report for necessary action against the respondent no. 1 to the Director of Agriculture, U. P. On the basis of the said report the Director of Agriculture issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 1 on August 5, 1976 but again no reply was submitted by the said respondent whereupon ultimately the Director of Agriculture passed an order of dismissal on February 7, 1977. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal the respondent no. 1 filed a claim petition which has been allowed by the aforesaid Tribunal by its judgment and order dated August 25, 1981. The Tribunal took the view that inasmuch as the District Agriculture Officer was not the appointing authority of the respondent no. 1 he could not initiate the disciplinary proceedings which led to the dismissal of the respondent. The Tribunal has further observed that the fact that both the show cause notice and the ultimate order of dismissal bad been passed by the Director of Agriculture would be of no avail in sustaining the validity of the impugned order of dismissal. It is against this decision of the Tribunal that the present petition has been filed. The contention of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal could not be invalidated on the ground that the departmental proceedings had been initiated by the District Agriculture Officer. The District Agriculture Officer had been admittedly designated as the appointing authority under a Government Order dated June 15, 1961. He was hence fully competent both to suspend the respondent aswell as to initiate departmental proceedings. What he could not do was to exercise the ultimate power of awarding the punishment of dismissal which, in the present case, was admittedly awarded by the Director of Agriculture, who held the same rank as the Joint Director of Agriculture who had appointed the respondent.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal's Order cannot be sustained. As mentioned above, the final order of dismissal has been passed by the Director of Agriculture. The show cause notice was also issued by him. The departmental proceedings were no doubt initiated by the District Agriculture Officer but under a Government Order the District Agriculture Officer had been designated as the appointing authority in the case of employees of the category and rank of the respondent. He could hence lawfully serve a charge sheet on the respondent. What Article 311 of the Constitution mandates is that the order of dismissal or removal must fee made by an authority not subordinate to the appointing authority. It does not require that the order initiating the enquiry or the enquiry itself must be made conducted by the appointing authority himself or by some officer not subordinate to him. Further, neither the Tribunal nor the learned counsel appearing before me for the respondent has pointed out any statutory rule which might indicate that disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the respondent only by the authority who had appointed the petitioner or that any other authority had been designated for that purpose. On the contrary, a clarification was issued by the Government under a G. O. dated December 25, 1963 (vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition) in which it has been stated very clearly that District Agriculture Officers having been declared appointing authorities were fully competent to initiate all disciplinary proceedings and could even suspend the erring employees, but the ultimate orders of dismissal or removal of employees who were originally appointed by the Director of Agriculture could be passed only by the Director of Agriculture. It is obvious that the Government order was issued keeping in view the constitutional mandate embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution as well as to clarify the misconception that even orders of suspension or initiation of disciplinary proceedings could not be passed by the District Agriculture Officers even after their designation as appointing authority in the case of members of Subordinate Agriculture Services, Group II and III. This Government Order puts the controversy beyond the pale of doubt.;