B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) Whether petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules) and can he said to have committed a misconduct when he worked as Section Officer since 11.8.82 to 10.10.82 whereas the interview of Sri Mahesh Chand Bindal in respect of whose qualifications office report was supposed to have been submitted by the petitioner, was held on 23.8.82 immediately after the petitioner joined as Section Officer and the report about the sufficiency or otherwise of the qualification of Sri Bindal was already submitted by some other Section Officer and not by the petitioner, particularly when before the actual date of interview all the relevant papers were submitted and examined by some other Section Officer (other than the petitioner) and thereafter they were examined by Mr. S.J. Rizvi, Member of the Commission who found them in order, hence under such situation can the petitioner be held liable particularly when the report was submitted to the Government, short comings in Sri Bindal's educational qualifications were already pointed out by Sri Ram Dayal Sonkar, Upper Division Assistant on 7.9.82 and whether under these circumstances impugned order dated 30.10,85 (Annexure 10 to the petition) passed by the Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) dismissing the petitioner from service can be sustained, are the points for our consideration in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner with the prayer that the impugned order dated 30.10.85 may be quashed and the respondents may be commanded not to interfere with the petitioners continuance in the service.
(2.) The portrayal or essential facts are these. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1962 in the Commission and Since 23.4.75 petitioner was promoted as Section Officer and he was confirmed as such. In the year 1981 the Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Food and Drug Controller U.P. when the petitioner was working as Section Officer in the confidential section. On 11.8.82 he was transferred as Section Officer in Service 8 Section, the post from which the petitioners liability was presumed. The last date for acceptance of application forms in the Commission was 22.11.81. The applications were received and they were scrutinised before the petitioner was posted in that Section. Before that Mr. S.H. Rizvi Member of the Commission who interviewed the candidates had also scrutinised all the applications of the candidates. On 7th April 1984 the petitioner was served with an office memo (Annexure 3 to petition) by the Joint Secretary to explain as to in what circumstances petitioner forwarded the drafts and notes dated 7.9.82 submitted by Mr. Sonkar without mentioning anything in regard to para 2 of the draft. The petitioner pryed for extension of time as only 2 days time was allowed till 9th April 1984 but by an order dated 23,4.84 (Annexure 4 to the petition) he was placed under suspension and was served with a chargesheet dated 5.7.84 (Annexure 5 to the petition).
(3.) In the charge sheet main charges were that the petitioner was posted as Section Officer in Service 8 Section from 11.8.82 to 10.10.82 and during this period the proceedings for selection by direct recruitment to the post of Food and Drug Controller U.P. were held and interview was held on 23.8.82 the recommendation regarding selection was made at page 40 of File No. 143/S 8/81 - 82 and that the petitioner put up note and draft page 41 - 42 of the file for sending the recommendation of the Commission to the Government. Under para 2 of the draft it was noted by Sri R.D. Sonkar Upper Division Assistant (in Hindi) that the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the candidature of Mr. Bindal was provisional as Sri Bindal has not submitted the certificate of having 5 years experience in Drug Standardisation and Drug Controlling, Drug manufacturing and Drug testing from a well reputed institution and it was indicated that the Government can issue appointment letter only after being satisfied provided the candidate already selected does not join the post (as there was only one vacancy) vide para 12 of the petition).;