STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.

(2.) Two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-5-97 of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 7150/93 as also against the order dated 27-2-98 in review petition CMA No. 81970/97. The High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 24-11-92 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and the review petition filed by the present appellants was also dismissed by the High Court. Respondent No. 1 Ram Krishna was appointed as Nalkoop Chalak w.e.f. 15-5-77. As he was found absent from his duty without obtaining leave a notice dated 26-7-79 was given to him and then by an order dated 6-8-79 his services were terminated with effect from 26-7-79. His services were terminated by order dated 6-8-79 w.e.f. 26-7-79. Respondent filed a representation against the above order before the Authority and on an assurance given by the respondent that he would not commit any mistake in future he was given a fresh appointment on 1-9-79 for three months and again on 18-12-79 for three months. As the respondent did not improve his work and again absented himself from duty without any application, his services were terminated by order dated 29-2-80. He, therefore, approached the Tribunal and challenged both the orders of termination of his services. It was contended by the appellants before the Tribunal that the appointment of the respondent was purely on temporary basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. It was also contended before the Tribunal that the impugned order of termination did not cast any stigma and his services were not terminated by way of punishment but in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment.

(3.) The Tribunal took the view that the termination order dated 6-8-79 was given back effect from 26-7-79 i.e. it was passed with retrospective effect, therefore, the order was bad as it was not permissible in law. On this count the above termination order was set aside. The Tribunal, however, did not grant the relief that he continued in service after 6-8-79. Regarding the second termination order dated 29-2-80 the Tribunal was of the view that it was not an order of termination simpliciter but it was stigmatic as it was passed on the ground that the respondent was an irresponsible employee and he was unauthorisedly absent. As no inquiry was held before passing the order, the second order of termination was held to be bad in law by the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal allowed the petition filed by the respondent and both the termination orders dated 6-8-79 and 29-2-80 were quashed.