- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 dated 23-11-87 (Annexure-10), order of the appellate authority, State Govern ment, respondent No. 2 dated 2-11-81 (Annexure-9) and the order of the Direc tor N. C. C. Lucknow, respondent No. 3 dated 14- 9-79 (Annexure-5) and has also prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with the entire arrears of salary with con tinuity of service and all other consequen tial benefits.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially ap pointed on 17-11-55 as Junior Division Clerk in II U. P. Battalion, N. C. C, B. H. U. Varanasi and was in due course promoted to the post of Senior Division Clerk and then to the higher post of Head Clerk. He was also confirmed on the said post with effect from 15-4-73. It is alleged that in 1973 the petitioner became ill with Deodanal Ulcer and suspected cancer and remained ill for about one year and he was advised by attending physicians to do light work. He was admitted and operated on 24-10-75 in Sir Sundarlal Hospital. THE petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 6-3- 79 (Annexure-1) which com prised of five charges, all relating to leave. THE first charge was that the petitioner applied for earned leave from 10-2-75 to 24-2-75, which was sanctioned and the same was availed of, but the said leave was neither entered in the leave account of the petitioner nor Part -11 order was published. THE petitioner filed reply. An inquiry under Rule 55 of the Classification Con trol and Appeal Rules was conducted and the Inquiry Officer in his report dated May 3,1979 concluded. "finding GENERAL APPLICABLE ALL ABOVE PLEAs THEre has been no other known case of such leave part publication lapse in the H. Q. THE delinquent officer as per his statement had in good faith left a lot of work to the dealing clerk because of his illness and operation. It is strongly felt that all the lapses in respect of Sri R. N. Srivastava could not have taken place without active participation of Sri Parma Nand Singh the dealing pers 'o' Clerk. " After submission of the inquiry report, respondent No. 3, the Director N. C. C. U. P. Lucknow passed the impugned order dated 14-9-79 removing the petitioner from service. THE petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before respondent No. 2, but the same was also dismissed by the order dated 2-11-81 (Annexure-9 ). THEre after the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 38/1/1982 before respondent No. 1 and the same has also been dismissed by the judgment dated 23-11-87 (Annexure-10 ). THE petitioner has challenged the order of removal mainly on the grounds that respondent No. 3 has passed the order of removal against the finding of the Inquiry Officer and he has mis-read the evidence on record; that the order of punishment does not contain any reason and there has been no application of mind for awarding such a severe punish ment and that in any view of the matter the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too severe for the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner and also that the principles of natural justice were violated. On behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 counter-affidavit has been filed and it is stated that the order of removal from the service of the petitioner was passed after considering the inquiry report and all other material on record. The petitioner being a Head Clerk and a responsible Government Servant was expected to have proper supervision of the office records and publication of orders. The petitioner tried to gain illegal benefit of leave and salary for himself for which he was served with a charge-sheet. The petitioner tried to shift his guilt upon others. In short the order of removal is defended on the grounds that the same has been passed after applying mind on the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as taking into consideration the report of the In quiry Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during inquiry as provided under the provisions of Rule 55-A of the Classifica tion Control and Appeal Rules. On this issue it is suffice to state that this submis sion of the learned Counsel has been dealt with in detail by respondent No. 1 in the impugned order. The petitioner par ticipated in the inquiry, he was given copies of all the relevant documents and also given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and produce his defence. The report of the Inquiry Of ficer also indicates that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend the char ges, which were framed against him. No such plea or objection was raised before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, this con tention of the petitioner must be repelled.
(3.) NEXT it has been argued that no copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer Major P. P. Pandey was supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the order of dis missal stands vitiated being violative of the principles of natural justice and in support of his contention reliance has been placed on the famous decision of Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) SCC 588. Where in it was held that termination order stands vitiated for non-supply of inquiry report being violative of the principles of natural jus tice. The judgment in that case was rendered on 20-11-90. A question there after arose whether ratio-down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case would be applicable to the orders passed earlier and a Con stitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Managing Director, ECIL. , Hyderabad v. B. K. Karunakar and others, (1973) 4 SCC 727, that the ratio in Ramzan Khan, case would apply to the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority after the date of the judgment. Since the controversy is no longer resintegra, the petitioner in the present case is not entitled to claim any benefit of the ratio of Ramzan Khan's case as admittedly the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 14-9-79 i. e. much before the date of judgment of Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case. It was then contended by the petitioner's counsel that the punishing authority, respondent No. 3, has differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without assigning any valid reasons and on this ground alone the order of respondent No. 3 is illegal, invalid and against the principles of Service Jurisprudence. The Tribunal has also examined this leg of ar gument, which was also raised before it and this Court is in complete agreement with the view. . . . . . . (sic ). . . . . . . . . . . . before (sic ). . . . . . . . . . taken by the Tribunal that respon dent No. 3 while passing the impugned order has considered the entire evidence on record and in fact appears to liave been taken extra pains in examining the evidence on record while coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved.;