A.P.Misra - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid three writ petitions are connected and are being decided by means of common order as the points involved therein are identical.
(2.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 8825 of 1981 has been filed by Sri Bihari Lal against the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal I, Lucknow dated 31-1-81 in claim petition no. 305 (I) of 1978 arising out of impugned order of removal dated 29-8-1973 (Annexure 9) to the petition. Similarly CIVIL Misc Writ Petition no. 9633 of 1981 has been filed by Prakash Chandra Saxena against the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal I, Lucknow dated 31-1-1981 in Claim petition no. 163 (I) arising out of impugned order of removal dated 9-4-74 (Annexure 10 to the petition). Likewise CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1983 has been filed by Sri Brij Kishore against the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal I Lucknow dated 1-12-1982 in Claim petition No 101 (1) of 1978 arising out of impugned order of removal dated 9-4-1974 (Annexure 2) to the petition. Against the aforesaid orders of removal from service of Lekhpal the petitioners filed the aforesaid claim petitions before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, I Lucknow which were dismissed against which the present three writ petitions have been filed. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal upheld the orders of removal from service passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad. All the three petitioners have challenged their order of removal and have raised common ground namely that in 1953 these petitioners were appointed by the Collector Farrukhabad and they were confirmed in due course of time and were also the office bearers of Lekhpal Sangh on account of which there was bias in the mind of the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officers which resulted into their removal. They urged no counter affidavit has been filed either by the Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned neither before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal I, Lucknow nor even in the present writ petitions as against allegation of malafide. All the three petitioners were appointed in the year 1953 by Collector Farrukhabad on the basis of G. O. dated 7-3-1953. They were suspended and removed from their services by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad. The charges levelled against these petitioners were that they misbehaved with the Tahsildar and did not produce the records inspite of the order being passed. It is also urged that the Tahsildar could not have been appointed as enquiry officer when he was himself the complainant. However state urged that the complaint was made by the Naib Tahsildar and not by the Tahsildar. It was also urged by the petitioners that they were denied opportunity to cross examine and producing their own witnesses and thus there was violation of the Principles of natural justice. On all these allegations three main contentions were raised. Firstly that the appointing authority of the petitioners was Collector and not the Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad, therefore, the order of removal passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority and thus the impugned order is in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India; secondly the complainant himself cannot be appointed as enquiry officer and the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar is liable to be set aside, thirdly that on account of unrebutted allegations of malafide, the impugned order is also liable to be set aside on this ground. The first contention can be disposed of summarily as complainant was Naib Tahsildar while enquiry was by the Tahsildar.
(3.) THE main contention was that the appointment of petitioners were made by the Collector Farrukhabad and thus removal by S.D.O. is invalid. According to the petitioners they were appointed by Collector Farrukhabad on the post of Lekhpal on the basis of the G.O. dated 7-3-53 under which the Collector was the appointing authority in the year 1953 against the permanent post in the substantive capacity. The Collector prepared three lists of the Lekhpals and the name of petitioners were in these lists. No copy of order of appointment was supplied to the petitioners. These three lists were prepared and was duly signed by the Collector, Farrukhabad, the petitioners were permitted to join their duties as Lekhpals in consequence thereof.;