STATE OF U P Vs. RAM BACHAN TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the order of termination dated 14-10-1992 terminating services of the respondent w.e.f. 10-5-1988 was illegal, as held by State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P. (in short the Tribunal). Tribunals view was that the order of termination was bad in law, the respondent was to be reinstated in service without all consequential benefits of pay, allowance etc., as per the prevailing rules. Liberty, however, was given to the State and its functionaries to initiate departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of respondent-employee.

(2.) Background facts which need to be noted in brief are as under: The respondent-employee who was selected by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short the Commission) for appointment to the post of Medical Officer was posted in the District of Basti. On 29-2-1988 the Chief Medical Officer, Basti directed the respondent-employee to join the Primary Health Centre at Deno Kuiya, District Basti. He submitted the joining report on 29-2-1988. Subsequently, he was transferred to District Gorakhpur and the respondent-employee submitted his joining report on 15-7-1988. According to the appellant-State the respondent-employee was asked to take over charge on 15-7-1988(FN) and he was to join at Mirzapur, Gorakhpur. The respondent-employee did not take over the charge at the said place and remained absent unauthorisedly. He did not even make any application for leave and also did not take over charge. He was absent from Government service from 16-7-1988. Show-cause notice was issued which was served on the respondent- employee and publication was also made in the newspaper of Gorakhpur. But there was no response to the show-cause notice. Therefore, his services were terminated w.e.f. 16-7-1988 i.e. the date from which he remained absent unauthorisedly. Respondent-employee took the stand that there was reply submitted to the show-cause notice as is evident from the communication dated 14-9-1991 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P., Medical Section-4. His further stand was that though he submitted the joining report on 11-8-1989, the same was not accepted. It was his further stand that the show-cause notice dated 11-1-1991 was responded to, but in the termination order it has been stated that no response was received. This is nothing else than stigma.

(3.) Questioning the order of termination the respondent-employee filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which by order dated 28-8-1999 allowed the petition. States application for review of the same was rejected by order dated 18-4-2001. The writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the order of termination contained stigma no opportunity of hearing was given and order of termination was, therefore, rightly set aside.