- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 9-9-1992, contained in An nexure 7 to the writ petition, by which the "tribunal did not interfere with the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 10-9-1973, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE factual gamut of the instant case reveals that the petitioner was an employee of Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (hereinafter called the PAC ). THEre had been a revolt in P. A. C. Centres at various places in Uttar Pradesh on 21/22nd May, 1973 and the petitioner was put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 324/149; 326/149 read with Sections 379, 120 B, 409 and 427 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called I. P. C.) as well as under Section 7 (c) of the U. P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the PAC Act ). THE petitioner was convicted by the learned Ses sions Judge, Varanasi only under Section 7 (c) of the PAC Act, for being grossly insub ordinate. However, this Court allowed the criminal appeal No. 2823 of 1976, filed by the petitioner and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi and also dismissed the State ap peal against the petitioner for other offen ces in which he had been acquitted by the Sessions Court. THE relevant part of the judgment of this Court runs as under: "while considering the prosecution case against Chhabinath Singh in connection with his Criminal Appeal No. 2823 of 1976 we have held that he was indoor patient at P. A. C. Hospital or 17-5-1973 and that at 5. 00 or 5. 30 a. m. on 22-5-7: he was shifted from P. A. C. Hospital to Lovet Hospital. On that ground we have set aside the conviction that was recorded against Chhabinatl Singh for the offence under Section 7 (c) of P. A. C Act. Since it was proved by the evidence on th record that Chhabinath Singh was in the Hospit; from 17th May, 1973 till the morning of 22-5-197 when he was shifted in Lovitt Hospital, it canm be held that he was a member of unlawful asseml ly and participated in any manner in the executic of the common object of that unlawful assembl the Government Appeal in so far as it concern Chhabmath Singh-respondent must, therefore, fails. " However, the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the order of the respondent No. 2, i. e. , the Governor of Uttar Pradesh passed on 10-9-1973, in exercise of his powers under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India, which provides for the dismissal/removal of a per son without holding any enquiry where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such anenquiry. It my also be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was not dismissed from service by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers under clause (a) of paragraph 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution which provides for dismissal or removal of an employee on the ground of his conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. After the acquittal from the High Court, the petitioner made a representation to the Governor for reinstatement with all the emoluments etc. and as he could not get any relief from there and matter remained pending for a long time, the petitioner preferred claim petition No. 146 (T)/l 1/1980 before respondent No. 1-Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition vide order dated 21-5- 1995 being time barred. The Tribunal held that the services of the petitioner had been ter minated in 1973 under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution and the petition was filed in 1980, so it was time barred. Had it been a case unde; Article 311 (2) (c), the petition could have been entertained after being ex onerated from criminal charges. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 23460 of 1991 before this Court vide its order dated 23-9-1991 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, allowed the said writ peti tion and set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 21-5-1991 and remanded the case to the Tribunal to decide it on merit. The judgment and order of this Court dated 23-9-1991 became final as the respondents did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment.
(3.) IN pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23-9-1991 the Tribunal heard the case on merit and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 9-9-1992 mainly on two grounds: (i) The petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity of hearing as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of INdia v. Tulasi Rampatel,alr 1985sc1416. (ii) The order passed by the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 311 (2) (c) is final and not justiciable in court of law and thus, as the order was not amenable to judicial review, the Tribunal was not in a position to examine whether there was sufficient material before the Governor for his subjective satisfaction to pass an order under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal reads as under: "as discussed above the power of his Excel lency, the Governor on satisfaction under clause (c) of proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of INdia is subjective and is not subject to judicial review and, therefore, this Tribunal is not in a position and is not empowered to go into the details whether there was sufficient material or not before His Excellency, the Governor, to come to the conclusion so as to pass the order under Clause (c) of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of INdia," Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioner preferred the instant writ peti tion. The parties had exchanged the af fidavits. Heard Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.;