- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The peti tioner, who was holding the post of Con solidation Officer, was given a charge sheet on 19-8-87 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition in which 20 charges had been levelled against him regarding his working as a quasi judicial authority. Ac cording to which the petitioner had al legedly been favouring one of the parties and was not strictly adhering to the rules of procedure etc. and the same reflected on the integrity of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the reply to the said charge sheet and after concluding the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted. On the basis of which the petitioner was awarded the punishment or loss of six increments vide order dated 19-11-88, Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It was further provided that petitioner shall not be given any amount except the subsistence allowance for the suspension period and a notice was given to him in this regard.
(2.) BEING aggrieved and dis-satisfied the petitioner approached this Court against the order dated 19-11- 88 by filing writ petition No. 24367 of 1988, which was allowed by this Court as the appointing authority had not made the copy of the enquiry report available to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as was mandatorily required as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan and others, AIR 1991 SC 471. How ever, the respondent No. 3 was directed to pass a fresh order after complying with the requirement of law. The copy of the judgment dated 10-7-91 has been filed as An-nexure-2to the writ petition. The copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner on 31-12-91 and after considering the reply of the petitioner, though petitioner alleged that it was merely a preliminary objection on pure question of law, the respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 15-1-92 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which the following punishments were awarded to the petitioner:- " (1) Reduction of the pay scale to the initial pay scale of the Consolidation Officer. (2) Forfeiture of entitlement to any amount except subsistence allowance for the period for which the petitioner had been under suspension and for the same a show cause notice was issued to him. (3) The integrity of the petitioner having been found to be doubtful was not certified and an adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner to the effect "that Shri Iftikhar Ahmad Siddiqui, the then Consolidation Officer, Allahabad was given three charge- sheets and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. There had been al together 20 charges in the said charge-sheets and the enquiry officer has found all of them to be true and the same were proved. The petitioner was served the show cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report, but Shri Siddiqui failed to defend himself from the said charges. It makes clear that Shri Siddiqui is indis-ciplined, negligent towards his duties, habitual to disobey the Courts orders and used to pass illegal orders beyond his jurisdiction. The Gaon Sabha has suffered irreparable loss because of his conduct and for his personal gain he has given benefit to tenure holders by unholy al liance. His integrity is found doubtful and for the same he is reprimanded. " Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied the petitioner challenged the said order dated 15-1-92 before this Court by filing writ petition No. 6849 of 1992, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15- 7-93 contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and the petitioner was directed to approach the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. The petitioner subsequently filed claim petition No. 1108 of 1993 before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28-3-95 contained in An nexure 9 to the writ petition. Hence this petition.
(3.) HEARD Shri S. U. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents and perused the record of the case. In fact the petitioner had chal lenged the impugned order dated 15-1-1992 passed by the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal on a very limited ground, i. e. that the disciplinary proceed ings cannot be initiated against him as the same orders had been passed in exercise of the quasi judicial power and petitioner was entitled to the protection of Section 49-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act, 1953, which reads as under: "protection of action taking under this Act or Rules made thereunder.-No suit, prosecu tion or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or Rules made therein. ";