CHAITAN LAL JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order 1.5.1996, passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and the order dated 6.4.1992 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Overseer (now designated as Junior Engineer) in Irrigation Division, Moradabad. He was placed under suspension on 24.5.1974 however, no charge was levelled against him and the order was revoked on 11.7.1974. Vide order dated 28.6.1982, the petitioner was served with a fresh charge-sheet by the Superintending Engineer. The charge-sheet was not accompanied by copies of the documents, therefore, the petitioner requested the respondents to provide him copies of the documents but copies of documents were not supplied to the petitioner and he was directed to come to Lucknow and to inspect the documents. The petitioner challenged his suspension order and filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. A written statement was filed by the respondents but there was no whisper of any final order having been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that in fact a final order dated 6.4.1992 has already been passed dismissing the service of the petitioner, on the ground that he had abandoned his services on 2.8.1983 and his whereabouts are not known. The petitioner had no knowledge of this order at all. The claim petition before the Tribunal was dismissed vide order dated 1.5.1996.

(3.) The petitioner has submitted that the departmental proceedings have not been concluded against him and no final order in the departmental proceedings has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner had not abandoned his job on 2.8.1983 and the assertion of the respondents that his whereabouts were not known to the departmental authorities which itself proved contradictory by the letters dated 12.8.1983, 22.9.1983 and 29.9.1983. Apart of these letters the petitioner has submitted stock, T and P Articles against indent for store etc. to the concerned authority and on 9.12.1983 he submitted measurement book in the office and the stock registers. On 30.4.1985, he attended Assistant Engineer (I) Officer with Stock Register etc. and on 30.8.1985, the petitioner requested (chat the old record be taken from him. On 16.9.1985, the petitioner handed over the entire records to the Junior Engineer. On 24.3.1993 the petitioner received another letter requesting his presence at a Vigilance Enquiry against some other officers which he had attended on 2.4.1993 is made on the said letter. By means of another Claim Petition No. 229 (F)/IV/1982 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal the petitioner had agitated his claim for being entitled to selection grade. In the aforesaid claim petition a counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-authorities but neither in the counter-affidavit nor in any other pleading there was a whisper that the services of the petitioner had dispensed with. The said case.' was decided on 9.7.1993 and the claim of the petitioner was allowed. The selection grade was approved to the petitioner vide Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 by Tie Executive Engineer. The extract of the Office Memorandum is quoted below : ...[VERNACULR TEXT OMITTED]...