Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. - (1.) The petitioners : (i) the State of U. P., (ii) the Dy. Inspector General of Police Kanpur Range, Kanpur and (iii) the Superintendent of Police, Etawah, have come up with a prayer to quash the Order dated 12.9.79 passed by respondent No. 1 the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, II, Lucknow in Claim Case. No. 1081/11/78, as contained in Annexure-V setting aside the order, dated 5.10.76 passed by the Superintendent of Police. Etawah dismissing respondent No. 2. Abdul Sagir Khan, Police Constable No. 116 A.P., and the appellate order dated 5.5.1977, passed by the DIG Kanpur Range, Kanpur dismissing the (appeal of respondent No. 2) and the Order dated 23.8.80, as contained in Annexure-VII, rejecting their Misc. Application No. 344-II-79 filed for rehearing the Claim Case which was sought for oh the ground that the department could not get any information about the date fixed for hearing of the aforementioned case.
(2.) The petitioners have come up with following pleadings : While respondent No. 2 was posted as an Orderly to the Reserved Inspector, proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were started against him in May, 1975. He was duly charge-sheeted (Charge Sheet Annexure-I) by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Etawah. Respondent No. 2 submitted his reply to the charges pleading not guilty. The enquiry officer duly conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 29.6.1976 (part of Annexure-II) proposing punishment of dismissal of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 3, S.P. Etawah, the punishing authority, on the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, served respondent No. 2 a show cause notice on 29.6.76 (first part of Annexure-II) along with the findings of the enquiry officer. Respondent No. 2 submitted his reply on 9.7.76. Petitioner No. 3 after duly considering his reply dismissed respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 5.10.76 (Annexure-III). Respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal alleging mala fide against respondent No. 3, the Reserved Police Inspector. Comments were invited. Written statement could not be filed within the time allowed by the Tribunal. 6.9.79 was fixed by the Tribunal for ex parte hearing. The dealing assistant of the Department was instructed to go and seek further adjournment from the Tribunal. The dealing assistant, however, who had gone to Allahabad on 4.9.79 in connection with some urgent official work, fell ill at Allahabad and could not appear before the Tribunal for seeking adjournment. The Tribunal adjourned the case to 12.9.79 about which the Department had no information. The Tribunal heard the arguments ex parte on 12.9.79 without any written statement and counter-affidavit on behalf of the Department and allowed the claim petition vide its order dated 12.9.79. An application, as contained in Annexure-VI, was filed on 11.10.79 under Section 5 of the U. P. Services Tribunal Act read with Order IX, Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rehearing the case after recalling the order dated 12.9.79, supported by the affidavit of Rama Shankar Agrawal, the record keeper of the Police Office, Etawah. Vide order dated 23.8.80 this application was rejected on the ground that sufficient time of about one month every time was allowed while granting four adjournments till 11.7.1979 and then on 11.7.1979 the time prayed for was rejected fixing 6.9.1979 for ex parte hearing granting two months time and on these facts provisions of Order IX, C.P.C. are not applicable and the provisions of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code have not been made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is asserted that Section 5 (5) (h) of the Act makes it clear that the ex parte orders passed by the Tribunal can be set aside by the Tribunal itself and that the view taken by it is patently erroneous ; that the cause shown for rehearing was sufficient ; that even if the plea of mala fide made against respondent No. 3 is accepted since he had nothing to do with either the enquiry or with the order of dismissal which was passed by the petitioner No. 3, against whom no mala fide was alleged, the order of dismissal was not vitiated ; and that on the findings recorded by the Tribunal it could not have set aside the order of dismissal.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.9.79 passed by the Tribunal, however, shows that the following observations and findings were recorded while allowing the claim petition giving liberty to the petitioners that if considered necessary, they may start fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same charges after framing fresh charges in accordance with the Rules : (i) Despite grant of four adjournments between 11.12.79 to 14.6.79 on their applications, no counter has been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and ultimately their last application moved on 11.7.1979 was rejected fixing 6.9.79 for ex parte hearing and arguments ex parte were heard on that date but till that date also no further action was taken by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, nor had they produced even the file of the disciplinary proceedings for perusal of the Tribunal to Judge the compliance of various rules, which means that they have nothing to say in regard to the allegations made concerning conduct of the disciplinary proceedings viz. ; (a) the charge-sheet did not mention of the oral and documentary evidence, which may be relied upon ; (b) non-supply of the documents referred to in the charge-sheet either at the time of its service or even thereafter ; (c) non-supply of copies of the statement of the witnesses ; (d) non-grant of sufficient and proper opportunity to plead and defend and to produce his witnesses ; (e) non-recording of his statement by the enquiry officer and non giving of opportunity to him to file his written statement before and (f) non-denial of the allegations of mala fide made against the opposite party No. 4 and thus, all these allegations have to be accepted as correct. (ii) The charges were incomplete and not in accordance with the Police Regulations. It did not mention the evidence--oral or documentary which were to be relied upon. (iii) The petitioner was not directed to file his written statement, etc. (iv) Copies of documents and other evidence were not furnished as required by the Rules. (v) The enquiry report as given to the petitioner shows that the enquiry officer had proceeded in an arbitrary manner inasmuch as on the very first page of his report, he has wrongly stated that the charges were accepted, whereas in the show cause they were denied. (vi) Even though an application after his show cause was filed for giving an opportunity to Inspect the record was denied. (vii) Therefore, the entire proceedings including the charges were illegal and void. The Submissions :;