Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the instant writ petition has sought quashing of the charge sheet inter- alia on the ground that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Seasonal Naib Tehsildar [Collection] Gorakhpur and as such the charge-sheet should have been approved by the Appointing Authority but without any approval from the appointing authority,the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar issued the charge sheet. Therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings are non est and deserves to be quashed. Apart from above, various other arguments were advanced to show that the disciplinary proceedings were per se bad as no date, time and place of enquiry was fixed, the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself.
On behalf of the respondents, Standing Counsel has stated that before appointment of the deceased petitioner,he worked as Collection Amin. As the appointing authority of the post of the Collection Amin was the District Magistrate and the charges for which disciplinary proceeding was initiated, were related for the period when the deceased petitioner was Collection Amin and as such the charge sheet dated 17.9.1993 was issued. Thereafter, due procedure was followed and even the Board of Revenue after scrutinizing the material on record, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the deceased petitioner are proved. Consequently, punishment order was passed.
The State Government has framed The Subordinate Revenue Executive Service ( Naib-Tehsildars ) Rules, 1944 for regulating the 2 appointment to posts in the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service ( Naib-Tehsildars) and the conditions of services of persons so appointed. Rule 2 deals with the Status of the service and says that the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service ( Naib Tehsidlars) is a subordinate service and shall be under the administrative control of the Board. Rule 22 deals with the appointment and provides that the Board shall, on the occurrence of substantive vacancies in the service make appointments thereto, in order of seniority of candidates, whose names are entered in the list maintained under rule 20.
From the perusal of the records it clearly comes out that the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were issued by the Collector. The Inquiry Officer was also appointed by the Collector. It is not disputed by the parties that the deceased- petitioner was working on the promotional post of Naib Tehsildar when the charge sheet was issued. Infact the deceased-petitioner was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar in the month of January, 1983. Undoubtedly, the Appointing Authority of the deceased- petitioner was the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the Collector was neither competent nor empowered to issue charge sheet to the deceased-petitioner. Further, he was also not competent to initiate the enquiry against the deceased-petitioner. Since I am satisfied that the charge sheet was issued by the incompetent authority the consequential disciplinary proceedings and punishment order are per se bad and are not sustainable, I refrain myself from entering into other arguments advanced by the parties Counsel.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The charge- sheets contained in Annexures 1 and 2 and the consequential show cause notice and punishment order are hereby quashed. Since the petitioner has already expired, the legal heirs, who were substituted in the writ petition in place of original petitioner shall be paid the post retiral benefits like provident fund, Group Insurance, monthly pension, gratuity and other admissible dues within a period of four months.
5.1.10 3 HM/-