Civil Appeal No 1068 of 1976 From the Judgment and order dated 781974 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No l02 of 1974
R K Garg VJ Francis and NM Popli for the Appellant
Anil Dev Singh and Mrs section Dixit for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
SINGHJ
This appeal is directed against the judgement of a 82 Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated August 7 1974 allowing the respondent s Letters Patent appeal and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissing the appellant s writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government dated April 24 1972 dismissing the appellant from the UP Civil Service Executive Branch
The appellant was in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a member of the UP Civil Service Executive Branch
He was posted as Regional Transport Magistrate at Bareilly between June 1962 to October 1964
A number of charges were framed against the appellant and the State Government referred the matter to the UP Administrative Tribunal constituted under the UP Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal Rules 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Rules for enquiry into those charges
The Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties submitted its findings to the State Government on 27th May 1970
Out of six charges framed against the appellant the Tribunal recorded the finding that the first charge was not proved but it recorded findings against the appellant in respect of the remaining five charges
The Governor issued show cause notice to the appellant on July 29 1970 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service
The notice was accompanied with a copy of the findings of the Tribunal
The appellant submitted a detailed reply making comments on the findings recorded by the Tribunal on each of the charges
The appellant submitted that there was no evidence to support the charges and the findings recorded by the Tribunal were not sustainable
On receipt of the appellant s reply to the show cause notice the Governor referred the same to the Tribunal in accordance with Rule l02 of the Rules
The Tribunal considered the appellant s reply to the show cause notice and his comments on the findings recorded by it earlier on the charges and thereupon it submitted a detailed findings to the Governor on 771971
In that report the Tribunal on a detailed analysis of the evidence recorded the finding that there was no convincing evidence to uphold the charges framed against the appellant
On receipt of the report of the Tribunal the State Government appears to have referred the matter to the Legal Remembrancer for his opinion
The Legal Remembrancer disagreed with the findings recorded by the Tribunal by his report dated July 7 1971 and he opined that there was sufficient evidence on record to uphold the charges 2 to 5 against the appellant
In view of the opinion submitted by the Legal Remembrancer the Governor disregarded the findings recorded by the Tribunal and issued the impugned order dated April 24 1972 dismissing the appellant from service
83 The appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Allahabad challenging the order of dismissal on a number of grounds
CSP Singh J allowed the writ petition by his order dated January 10 1974 and quashed the order of dismissal
The Respondent State of Uttar Pradesh preferred letters patent appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
The Division Bench by its order dated August 7 1984 allowed the appeal set aside the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant had been given reasonable opportunity of defence and there was ample evidence to sustain the charges and the order of dismissal did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity
Hence this appeal
The State Government had framed six charges against the appellant and referred the same to the Administrative Tribunal for enquiry
The Tribunal recorded findings that charge No 1 was not proved while remaining charges two to six stood proved against the appellant
The State Government accepted the Tribunal s findings on charges Nos 2 to 5 but it disagreed with the Tribunal s findings on charge No 6 as it was of the opinion that the said charge was not made out
The State Government issued notice to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service
The appellant submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice assailing the findings of the Tribunal on the ground that there was no evidence on record to sustain the findings of the Tribunal on charges Nos 2 to 5
On receipt of the appellant s explanation the State Government referred the matter to the Tribunal again and thereupon the Tribunal considered the matter and by its report on 7th July 1971 it recorded findings that there was no convincing evidence to support the charges and sustain its findings recorded earlier on charges 2 to 5 against the appellant
Charges 2 to 5 were of common pattern to the effect that the appellant had while posted as the Regional Transport Magistrate at Bareilly claimed travelling allowance at the rate of first class railway fare without having actually travelled in that class on four different occasions
Three out of four journeys were alleged to have been made on 14th April 1963 26th May 1963 and 11th September 1963 from Bareilly to Nijibabad and the fourth journey was made on 30th April 1963 from Nijibabad to Bareilly
The appellant denied the charges and asserted that he had performed the aforesaid journeys in the first class and had paid fare for that class
In its initial report dated 7th May 1970 the Tribunal had recorded findings that there was evidence on record to sustain the charges but in its subsequent report dated July 7 1971 the Tribunal after considering the appellant s reply to the show 84 casue notice and after reappraising the evidence held that there was no convincing evidence to sustain its earlier findings on charges 2 to 5 in the light of the submissions made by the appellant in reply to the show cause notice
We have carefully scrutinised the two reports of the Tribunal as well as the note of the Legal Remembrancer
We are of opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in its report dated July 7 1971 was positive in nature that there was no convincing evidence to sustain the charges 2 to 5 against the appellant
The Legal Remembrancer disagreed with the findings recorded by the Tribunal
The Governor acted on the report of the Legal Remembrancer without recording any reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Tribunal dated July 7 1971 and passed the impugned order dated 2441972 dismissing the appellant from service
The High Court has held that the findings of the Tribunal dated
May 7 1970 and further the report of the Legal Remembrancer indicated that there was evidence on record to support the charges against the appellant therefore the Government was justified in passing the impugned order of dismissal
The High Court further held that since there was some evidence on record which the Government found sufficient to sustain the charges the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order on the ground of inadequacy of the evidence
The High Court held that the Governor was justified in accepting the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer and it was not necessary for him to record any reasons in disagreeing with the findings of the Tribunal dated July 7 1971
We do not find any justification for the view taken by the High Court
The Tribunal was the inquiring authority
It was entrusted with the duty of holding inquiry and submitting its findings to the Government
In its initial report dated May 7 1970 it recorded findings against the appellant but when the Governor referred the appellants reply to the show cause notice to the Tribunal it reconsidered the matter in the light of the analysis of the evidence submitted by the appellant and thereupon it recorded a positive finding that there was no convincing evidence to support its earlier findings on the charges
The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in reappraising the evidence as the Governor had referred the matter to it under Rule 102 of the Rules
The State Government without recording any reasons for not accepting those findings issued the impugned order of dismissal presumably on the basis of the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer
The State Government did not record any reason as to why it ignore the findings recorded by the Tribunal
If the State Government chose to pass the impugned order of dismissal in all fairness it should have recorded reasons for the same and in order to afford reasonable 85 Opportunity to the appellant it was necessary for the State Government to communicate the reasons for disagreement with the Tribunal s report to the appellant
The report submitted by the Legal Remembrancer to the Government on the basis of which the impugned order was passed had never been disclosed or communicated to the appellant and he was denied opportunity to meet the same
Article 3112 before its amendment by the Constitution Forty second Amendment Act 1976 contemplated reasonable opportunity of defence even at the stage of show cause notice
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs SN Nizamuddin Ali Khan  an enquiry into certain charges was held by a High Court Judge against a Munsif Magistrate
The Enquiry officer submitted its findings and recommended compulsory retirement
The Chief Justice of the High Court also examined the evidence on his own and confirmed the findings of the Enquiry officer and made recommendation of compulsory retirement
Both reports were sent to the Government and a show cause notice with the Enquiry officer s report was issued to the respondent
The Government issued orders retiring the Munsif compulsorily
This Court held that since the supplementary report submitted by the Chief Justice to the Government was not given to the officer he had no reasonable opportunity of making his representation against the report of the Chief Justice and therefore the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated
The Court emphasised that the officer was denied the opportunity of being heard at the second stage of enquiry
Indisputably in the instant case the Governor acted on the report of the Legal Remembrancer which contained findings against the appellant but the copy of the same was not given to him
Hence the appellant could get no opportunity of meeting the same
The appellant was therefore denied opportunity of being heard at the stage of show cause notice
We have carefully gone through the Tribunal s report dated July 7 1970
We find that the Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that there was no evidence on record to prove that the appellant did not purchase Ist class tickets in advance relating to the journeys in question
The Tribunal observed that the evidence on record raised suspicion against the appellant but it observed that mere suspicion was not sufficient to hold that the charges had been proved against the appellant
The Legal Remembrancer ignored the findings recorded by the Tribunal and concluded that the evidence on record duly proved charges 2 to 5 against the appellant
On a perusal of the Legal Remembrancer s note which is on record we find that the entire approach of the Legal Remembrancer in considering the Tribunal s findings suffered from errors of law
While holding that the Tribunal 86 had committed error in holding that there was no evidence to prove charges against the appellant he observed Where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge it is not the function of the court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence
 The above observations of the Legal Remembrancer clearly indicate that he was of the opinion that the Tribunal had limited jurisdiction in reconsidering the findings recorded by it earlier against the appellant
He proceeded on the assumption that the Tribunal had no authority to reappraise the evidence or to enter into sufficiency or adequacy of evidence while considering the question whether charges stood proved against the appellant on the evidence on record
The principles applicable to judicial review of administrative actions or findings recorded in departmental disciplinary proceedings do not apply to a Tribunal which is like an inquiring authority while assessing the evidence on the charges framed against a delinquent officer
The Tribunal was entrusted with the primary duty of making inquiry and record its findings on the charges
In that process it could enter into adequacy insufficiency or credibility of evidence on record
The Legal Remembrancer was of the opinion that the Tribunal could not enter into the realm of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence and for that purpose he relied upon the well established principles of judicial review of administrative actions
The Tribunal was not discharging the functions of a court but on the other hand it was acting as the inquiring authority and it had full power to reappraise the evidence and record its findings and in that process it was open to it to hold that the evidence on record was not sufficient to sustain the charges against the appellant
The whole approach of the Legal Remembrancer was misconceived as a result of which he opined that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in appellant s favour could be ignored
We are of opinion that the State Government could not ignore the findings of the Tribunal applying the principles of judicial review of administrative actions by a court of law
The State Government committed serious error of law in ignoring the findings of the Tribunal without giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the proposed view of the Government and passing the impugned order on the basis of the report of the Legal Remembrancer
The Tribunal s findings dated July 7 1970 clearly indicated that there was no evidence to sustain the 87 charges against the appellant and in that view the impugned order of dismissal could not legally be passed against the appellant
In view of our discussion we are of opinion that there was no evidence on record to sustain the findings on charges 2 to 5 against the appellant and further the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 3112 as it then existed
We further hold that the State Government s order dismissing the appellant from service was illegal and unconstitutional
We therefore set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and allow the appellant s petition and quash the order of dismissal dated April 24 1972 and direct that the appellant shall be treated to be in service without break with all consequential benefits
The appellant is entitled to his costs
SL Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Khandapara which merged in the State of Orissa on August 1 1949
Article 3 of the Agreement of Merger guaranteed that the Raja shall be entitled to full ownership use and enjoyment of all his private properties
The Orissa Merged States  Laws Act 1950 extended the Orissa Tenant s Protection Act 1948 to the merged areas
In 1951 the respondents evicted certain tenants
The tenants applied to the Revenue Officer under the 1948 Act for being restored to possession on the allegations that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlawfully evicted them
The Revenue Officer allowed the applications and directed restoration of possession
The respondent filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer contending 1 that the application of the provisions of the 1948 Act to his private properties violated the guarantee given under the Agreement 2 that article 363 Of the Constitution barred the Court from dealing with any dispute arising out of the Agreement and 3 that the 1948 Act did not apply to him as he was not a landlord
The High Court accepted these contentions and quashed the proceedings taken under the 1948 Act Held that the extension of the 1948 Act did not affect the full ownership use and enjoyment of his properties guaranteed to the respondent under the Agreement
The provisions of the Agreement only protected his rights to the properties declared to be his private properties so that they could not be claimed at anytime thereafter as State properties
The guarantee given under the Agreement could not be absolute but could only be co extensive with the right to acquire hold and dispose of property which is guaranteed to all citizens under article 191f of the Constitution
State of Bihar vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of 136 1068 Darbhanga and Visheshwar Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh  followed
Held that the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain the applications under the 1948 Act was not barred by article 363 Of the Constitution
The dispute between the appellants and respondent was not a dispute which arose out of the Agreement of Merger and so was not covered by article 363
Held further that the respondent was a landlord to whom the provisions of the 1948 Act applied
Whatever may have been the definition of the terms landlord and tenant in SS
2C and g of the 1948 Act the definitions contained in section 7a of the 1950 Act made the appellants the tenants  and the respondent the landlord  in regard to the lands in question