- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner, who was employed as Instructor in Discipline of Welding in Govt. Industrial Training In stitute, Naini, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order dated 19-12-1994, whereby he was removed from the service by the Asstt. Director (Ad ministrator) and the order dated 13-12-95 passed by the Director, Industrial Training and Employment U. P. Rozgar Bhawan, Lucknow, dismissing his appeal filed against the order of removal noted above.
(2.) THIS case was heard on 2-4-96 ; but disagreeing with the submissions made by the learned Counsel, it was dismissed and reasons for the order were directed to fol low. In the meanwhile, learned Counsel for the petitioner made an application for recalling the order dated 2-4-96 and to af ford him an opportunity to address the Court. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the said application was allowed. Case was again heard and thereafter judg ment was reserved on 6-3-97. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20-6-92, a complaint was made by Smt. Kesari Devi, wife of the petitioner that the petitioner had illicit con nection with Smt. Urmila Devi and was keeping her as his mistress. On the said complaint, preliminary enquiry was made and the allegations were found to be correct. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were proposed to be initiated and the Joint Director of Education was appointed as Enquiry Officer. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner levelling three charges against him, that he was keeping a mistress during the life time of his wife, he has shown Km. Rita as his daughter in G. P. F. Pass Book, took loan for her marriage, although Km. Rita was not his daughter and that he shown Smt. Urmila as his wife and nominated her, although he was never mar ried with her. Petitioner in reply to the aforesaid charges filed his explanation on 14-12-93. Thereafter, enquiry was con ducted and petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. A notice was issued against him on 19-6-94 to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. Petitioner submitted his explanation/reply of the said notice on 16-7-94 denying the charges levelled against him and requested for dropping the proceed ings. The Punishing Authority, Asstt. Direc tor (Administrator) held that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and violation of Rules 3 (2), 18 and 29 of the U. P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules. Having recorded the said findings, he removed the petitioner from service vide order dated 19-12-94. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2, who also affirmed the findings recorded by the punishing authority and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 13-12-95 as stated above. The said orders of punishing and the appellate authority have been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that from the evidence on the record, second marriage of the petitioner with Smt. Urmila Devi was not proved. He asserted that unless the factum of marriage with it essential ingredient i. e. "saptapadi", is proved, petitioner cannot be held guilty of misconduct under Rule 29 of the said Rules. He has further asserted that mere keeping a mistress in the life time of a wife does not constitute misconduct within the meaning of Rule 29 of the said Rules. He has vehemently urged that in any view of the matter the punishment of removal awarded against the petitioner on the charges levelled against him, was quite harsh and not commensurate to the charges proved against him, therefore, was liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the punishing authority on the charges levelled against the petitioner are findings of fact, which are based on the relevant evidence, which formed part of the record and the same cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also urged by him that the petitioner himself having admitted the factum of marriage with Smt. Urmila Devi, was estopped from contending that he was not guilty of misconduct, inasmuch as under Rule 29 of the said Rules second marriage during the life time of first wife was a mis conduct. It was further urged that the petitioner himself admitted that Km. Rita was not his daughter and that he took loan for her marriage was guilty of violation of Rules 3 (2) and 18 of the said Rules. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.;