RAMCHANDRATRIPATHI Vs. U P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. This appeal is directed against dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 5803 of 1984 passed on 9/5/1991 made by the appellant before the Allahabad High court challenging the order of dismissal dated 11/9/1984 passed by the U. P. Public Services tribunal in Claim No. 3 of 1988/f/iv/81. The aforesaid claim petition was moved by the appellant before the U. P. Public Services tribunal against the order of termination of service of the appellant dated 15/4/1981. The service of the appellant was sought to be terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice by giving effect to the termination of service from the date of service of the said order of termination. It may be stated here that such notice was served on the appellant on 1/4/1981.

(2.) The relevant facts concerning the above appeal may be stated as hereunder. The appellant was recommended for the post of Overseer in the Local Self government Engineering Department of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as LSGED) by a Selection Committee. On such recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appellant was appointed to the post of Overseer by the Chief Engineer, LSGED and the appellant joined his duties as an Overseer on 8/10/1964. The post of Overseer was later on redesignated as Junior Engineer. Accordingly, the appellant was treated as Junior Engineer. The appellant's service was made permanent by confirming him to the said post of Junior Engineer w. e. f. 1/4/1974 by an order dated 31/8/1975 passed by the Chief Engineer, LSGED. After the U. P. Jal Nigam was established by the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply Sewerage Act, 1975, the service of the appellant was transferred from LSGED to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam a statutory body with the same terms and conditions under which the appellant was working in the LSGED. It appears that in a Writ Petition No. 103 of 1974 filed by one Shri Satya Virat Singh against State of Uttar Pradesh, the High court of Allahabad passed an interim order restraining the respondent to confirm Junior Engineers. Despite such order of injunction which was in force, the aforesaid order dated 31/8/1975 was passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, LSGED confirming the appellant to the post of Junior Engineer w. e. f. 1/4/1974. After it was detected that the said order of confirmation was illegal and contrary to the interim order of injunction passed in the said writ petition, an order of deconfirmation was issued on 8/2/1978 by which the confirmation of the service of the appellant was recalled and the appellant was treated as holding a temporary post of Junior Engineer. It may be stated in this connection, that such order of rectification of the earlier order of confirmation was not made by informing the appellant and giving him opportunity of being heard. It appears that some orders of transfers were passed against the appellant but the appellant went on long leave on medical ground and continued to remain on leave and after medical leave was over, he joined his earlier place of posting at Kanpur and not at the place where he was scheduled to join on transfer. Thereafter, the appellant was served with the said order of termination with immediate effect by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice.

(3.) The appellant challenged such order of termination before the U. P. Public Services tribunal at Lucknow inter alia contending that he was a permanent employee having rendered total period of service for 16 years in LSGED and in U. P. Jal Nigam. The appellant contended that he was never informed of deconfirmation of his service and the order of termination was passed against him mala fide in view of the fact that he being the President of U. P. Jal Nigam Employees' Union at Kanpur, incurred the displeasure of the higher authorities for raising voice of protest against improper action of U. P. Jal Nigam and seeking redressal of the grievances of the employees of the Jal Nigam. The appellant also contended that there was no valid reason for terminating the service of the appellant and he was singled out on the pretext that he had suffered adverse entries in the confidential character roll for the years 1965-66 and 1978-79. The appellant contended that entry for the year 1965-66 was a stale entry and could not have been taken into consideration for deciding the suitability of the appellant and the other adverse entry for the year 1978-79 could not also be taken into consideration as the same was not communicated to the appellant. The appellant contended that the said order of termination of service was in essence a punitive order without following the proper procedure for passing such order. The order, therefore, should be set aside.