D.R. Misra, J. - (1.) Sri Mahatam Singh, opposite party No. 2, was working as a Head Constable in the U.P. P.A.C. in XXth with its headquarters at Fatehpur in May, 1973. It was stated that there was some disturbance in P.A.C. throughout the Utter Pradesh during the month of May, 1973. The services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 13.11.73 passed by His Excellency the Governor of U.P. with immediate effect. The said opposite party challenged the said order by way of a Civil Suit No. 103 of 1974 filed in the court of Munsif, Fatehpur for a delegation that the said order was illegal and inoperative. On behalf of the petitioners a written statement was filed in the Court of the said Munsif stating that the services of the petitioner were terminated because he alongwith other constables of the P.A.C. had taken out arms and ammunition forcibly after breaking open the look of the Amery and Magazine of the P.A.C., for which the said opposite party No. 2 along with other were prosecuted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 121, 122, 395 and 397 I.P.C. read with Section 6 P.A.C. and Rule 43 (5) of the D.I.R. It was further stated that the said opposite party No. 2 took active part in the P.A.C. rebellion on account of which a Crime No. 280 of 1973 was registered against him. It was pleaded that on the basis of the reports concerning the above incident the services of the opposite party No. 2 were terminated under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the said suit in the trial court, the U.P. Public Service Tribunals Ordinance was enforced in 1975 and the suit was declared abated and the file was sent to the Services Tribunal for further proceedings, the Services Tribunal, opposite party No. 1, has by its impugned order dated 30.4.1979, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, set aside the aforesaid order dated 13.11.1973 terminating the services of the opposite party No. 2. Under the said order it has been further declared that the opposite party No. 2 continued to be in service and is entitled to all pay and allowances according to rules.
(2.) I have heard learned Standing Counsel. The admitted case .of the State in the written statement was that the services of opposite party No. 2 were terminated by the order dated 13.11.1973 as a consequence of his taking part in P.A.C. rebellion in connection with which the opposite party No. 2 was prosecuted in Crime Case No. 280 of 1973. The opposite party No. 2 denied this fact and in support of his denial he also filed a copy of the charge - sheet from a perusal of which the Services Tribunal found that the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 is correct and on the basis of the materials on record the Services Tribunal has by its impugned order recorded a finding to the effect that there is nothing on the record to show that the opposite party No. 2 had at all taken part in the P.A.C. rebellion in May, 1973 in any manure and that the copy of the charge sheet dated 20.10.75 in Crime Case No. 250 of 1973 clearly disclosed that the allegation of the petitioners was not mentioned therein. Accordingly, the Tribunal held as follows : "...... It has thus to be held that there was no material before the Governor for his satisfaction and to hold that the service of the petitioner could be terminated in a summary menner without any enquiry in accordance with Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution or India." It was also held by the Tribunal that the order of termination was not passed in some emergency as this order was passed in November, 1973, whereas the alleged rebellion took place in May, 1973. Thus it was ultimately held that the impugned order of termination was totally arbitrary and and mala fide and cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with law as provided by Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) After hearing the learned Standing Counsel and having gone through the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by die Services Tribunal, I find that there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Services Tribunal.;