JUDGMENT A.P.Misra 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid three writ petitions are connected and are being decided by means of common order as the points involved therein are identical. 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8825 of 1981 has been filed by Sri Bihari Lal against the order of U.P. Public Services Tribunal I, Lucknow dated 31-1-81 in claim petition no. 305 (I) of 1978 arising out of impugned order of removal dated 29-8-1973 (Annexure 9) to the petition. Similarly CIVIL Misc Writ Petition no. 9633 of 1981 has been filed by Prakash Chandra Saxena against the order of U.P. Public Services Tribunal I, Lucknow dated 31-1-1981 in Claim petition no. 163 (I) arising out of impugned order of removal dated 9-4-74 (Annexure 10 to the petition). Likewise CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1983 has been filed by Sri Brij Kishore against the order of U.P. Public Services Tribunal I Lucknow dated 1-12-1982 in Claim petition No 101 (1) of 1978 arising out of impugned order of removal dated 9-4-1974 (Annexure 2) to the petition. Against the aforesaid orders of removal from service of Lekhpal the petitioners filed the aforesaid claim petitions before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, I Lucknow which were dismissed against which the present three writ petitions have been filed. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal upheld the orders of removal from service passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad. All the three petitioners have challenged their order of removal and have raised common ground namely that in 1953 these petitioners were appointed by the Collector Farrukhabad and they were confirmed in due course of time and were also the office bearers of Lekhpal Sangh on account of which there was bias in the mind of the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officers which resulted into their removal. They urged no counter affidavit has been filed either by the Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned neither before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal I, Lucknow nor even in the present writ petitions as against allegation of malafide. 3. ALL the three petitioners were appointed in the year 1953 by Collector Farrukhabad on the basis of G. O. dated 7-3-1953. They were suspended and removed from their services by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad. 3. ALL the three petitioners were appointed in the year 1953 by Collector Farrukhabad on the basis of G. O. dated 7-3-1953. They were suspended and removed from their services by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad. The charges levelled against these petitioners were that they misbehaved with the Tahsildar and did not produce the records inspite of the order being passed. It is also urged that the Tahsildar could not have been appointed as enquiry officer when he was himself the complainant. However state urged that the complaint was made by the Naib Tahsildar and not by the Tahsildar. It was also urged by the petitioners that they were denied opportunity to cross examine and producing their own witnesses and thus there was violation of the Principles of natural justice. On all these allegations three main contentions were raised. Firstly that the appointing authority of the petitioners was Collector and not the Sub-Divisional Officer, Farrukhabad, therefore, the order of removal passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority and thus the impugned order is in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India; secondly the complainant himself cannot be appointed as enquiry officer and the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar is liable to be set aside, thirdly that on account of unrebutted allegations of malafide, the impugned order is also liable to be set aside on this ground. The first contention can be disposed of summarily as complainant was Naib Tahsildar while enquiry was by the Tahsildar. 4. The main contention was that the appointment of petitioners were made by the Collector Farrukhabad and thus removal by S.D.O. is invalid. According to the petitioners they were appointed by Collector Farrukhabad on the post of Lekhpal on the basis of the G.O. dated 7-3-53 under which the Collector was the appointing authority in the year 1953 against the permanent post in the substantive capacity. The Collector prepared three lists of the Lekhpals and the name of petitioners were in these lists. No copy of order of appointment was supplied to the petitioners. These three lists were prepared and was duly signed by the Collector, Farrukhabad, the petitioners were permitted to join their duties as Lekhpals in consequence thereof. 5. The Collector prepared three lists of the Lekhpals and the name of petitioners were in these lists. No copy of order of appointment was supplied to the petitioners. These three lists were prepared and was duly signed by the Collector, Farrukhabad, the petitioners were permitted to join their duties as Lekhpals in consequence thereof. 5. Petitioners made an application before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal asking the respondents to produce the relevant order of appointment of the petitioners which were in possession of the State Government but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal, they were not produced. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also annexed such an application made before the Tribunal. However the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is nothing to show otherwise on behalf of the petitioners and Lekhpals' Service Rules show that the appointing authority of the Lekhpals was the officer of the Sub-Division and thus the Sub-Divisional Officer was the proper person and he rightly passed the order of removal. 6. It was the duty of the State Government especially in a case, when the petitioners' case is that no appointment letter was issued to them but the appointments were made by the Collector by issuance of three lists to have produced this relevant record. It is significant in the counter affidavit filed in writ petition no. 9633 of 1981 a letter has been annexed by the State Government which shows that it is a confidential D. O. Letter written by the Secretary to Government of U.P. in which it is mentioned that number of writ petitions were filed by the Lekhpals and for want of adequate material on record, the same were allowed. This also lends support to the case of the petitioner that inspite of the request and order being passed, non production of the record by the State Government shows that in case it would have been produced, it would have gone against the State Government. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal committed error by recording a finding that since under the Lekhpal's Service Rules the appointing authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, the order of removal being passed by the said authority is justified. It is not in dispute that the appointments of the petitioners were made in the year 1953 while the Lekhpals' Service Rules came in the year 1958 which is not retrospective. It is not in dispute that the appointments of the petitioners were made in the year 1953 while the Lekhpals' Service Rules came in the year 1958 which is not retrospective. Thus reliance of the said rules that the appointing authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned, is patently erroneous and the said finding cannot be sustained. It was for the State Government to show that prior to the said rules the appointing authority of the petitioners was the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government in writ petition No. 8825 of 1981 in para 4 it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made under the Land Revenue Act, 1901 and since the Assistant Collector was the appointing authority at that time, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the Collector is appointing authority, cannot be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel very fairly contended that there is nothing under Land Revenue Act which stipulates the appointment of the Lekhpals by the Assistant Collector. Since the petitioners have been repeatedly requesting to produce the relevant record regarding their appointment and that nothing produced and also that the appointments of the petitioners were made by the Collector by virtue of three lists prepared by him, which was also signed by him and this averment having not been denied by the State, the case set up by the petitioners stands proved. 7. It has been very specifically averred in the writ petitions that the petitioners were not issued any appointment letter. On account of this fact it was the duty of the State to have come out with any record of G. O. or any document showing that the appointment of the petitioners as alleged, have not been made by the Collector or by S.D.O. Therefore, it cannot be said that the burden lies on the petitioners to prove otherwise. It is a fact that the State Government failed to produce the said record and as such the inevitable inference is to be drawn that the petitioners were appointed by the then Collector Farrukhabad. Since the petitioners were appointed by the Collector Farrukhabad, removal orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers Farrukhabad who was the authorities subordinate to the Collector were in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, therefore impugned order of removal of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 8. Since the petitioners were appointed by the Collector Farrukhabad, removal orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers Farrukhabad who was the authorities subordinate to the Collector were in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, therefore impugned order of removal of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations, all the three writ petitions are allowed with costs and the impugned orders of U.P. Public Services Tribunal (1) respondent no. 5 dated 31-1-1981 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 8825 of 1981, 31-1-1981 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 9633 of 1981 and 1-12-1982 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 4599 of 1983 alongwith all the aforesaid three removal orders dated 29-8-1973 (Annexure 9 of Writ Petition no. 8825 of 1981) passed against petitioner Bihari Lal, the removal order dated 9-4-74 (Annexure 10 of Writ Petition no. 9633 of 1981 passed against petitioners Prakash Chandra Saxena and the removal order dated 9-4-74 (Annexure 2 of Writ Petition no. 4599 of 1983) passed against petitioner Brij Kishore are quashed. Petitions allowed.