RAJ MANI CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the judgment and order dated 10.4.1996, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 107/1/1989, Sita Ram v. State of U. P. and others, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be summarised as under : The petitioner Sita Ram son of Mishri Ram, resident of Palto, Post Office Bhimbar, district Azamgarh, was appointed as temporary Class IV employee in Industrial Training Institute, Azamgarh w.e.f. 11.1.1967 (wrongly mentioned in the petition w.e.f. 11.1.1987) and he was made permanent w.e.f. 1.1.1974. The petitioner was Secretary of the U. P. Rajya Karamchari Mahasangh Shakha, Azamgarh. In the year 1988, a new branch of Industrial Training Institute was opened by the State Government in the town Mohnagar, Tehsil Lalganj, which was about 20 kilometers ' away from the District Head-quarter, Azamgarh. The opposite party No. 2 Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Azamgarh transferred the petitioner from Industrial Training Institute, Azamgarh to Industrial Training Institute, Mohnagar, vide transfer order dated 2.5.1988 and the transfer order was sent to him through a Class IV employee in an envelope. The petitioner refused to accept the envelope containing the transfer order. He tried to meet the Principal on 4, 5 and 6.5.1988 at his residence but he refused to meet him. However, he on 6.5.1988 meet the Principal in his Office and explained his personal and domestic problems on account of transfer. He requested for cancellation of his transfer order. But the Principal did not consider his request. The Principal, thereafter, vide order dated 7.5.1988 (Annexure-4) placed him under suspension initiating disciplinary proceeding against him. He appointed Sri R. Y. Ram as Inquiry Officer by the same order. The order was served to the petitioner by affixing copy of the order at his residence. The petitioner moved an application before opposite party No. 2 to change the Inquiry Officer as Sri R. Y. Ram, Inquiry Officer was bearing personal grudge with him. Although opposite party No. 2 rejected his application but later on he, vide order dated 1.6.1988 (Annexure-12) constituted a Committee of three members replacing Sri R. Y. Ram to conduct the inquiry against him in which one of the member of Committee was Sri R. Y. Ram. The petitioner further moved an application before opposite party No. 2 to disband the inquiry committee on the ground that the committee had been constituted against the rules as there was no provision for conducting the inquiry by a committee. He also raised objection against Sri R. Y. Ram, who was one of the member of the Inquiry Committee on the ground that he had personal bias against him. Although opposite party No. 2 rejected his application but later on disbanded the committee and appointed one Sri Nageshwar Thakur as Inquiry Officer, who proceeded with the inquiry. The petitioner raised objection before the opposite party No. 2 against appointment of Sri Nageshwar Thakur on the ground that he had earlier been a prosecution witness in a criminal case pending against him. He was biased with him. He further requested to change the Inquiry Officer but his application was rejected by the opposite party No. 2. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry with the finding that all the four charges levelled against the petitioner were fully established. The opposite party No. 2/Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer issued show cause notice to him and he after considering the reply given by him in response to the show cause notice found that in view of nature of charges levelled against him, he did not deserve to remain in service. Consequently, he vide order dated 30.8.1988 (Annexure-29) passed an order of his removal from service allowing him three months advance pay.
(3.) THE petitioner challenged the order of his removal from the service before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 107/1/1989, Sita Ram v. State of U. P. and others. The Public Services Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 10.4.1996, dismissed his claim petition which has given rise to the present writ petition.;