NAINI BAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 18.4.2001 (Annexure-5 to the petition) thereby terminating the services of the petitioner.

(2.) It would transpire from the perusal of the record that petitioner's husband who had been in the service of Nagar Panchayat, Nadi Gaon, district Jalaun, for the last 10 years was spirited away by death on 4th March, 1996 and as a sequel to his death, petitioner, widow of the deceased, applied for appointment and she was offered appointment under Dying-in-harness Rules by means of appointment letter dated 1st April, 1996. The petitioner claims to have been discharging her duties as sweeper ever since then and to the entire satisfaction of the authorities. It would further appear from the record that she was served with a notice dated 5.4.2001, issued under the signature of Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat thereby enjoining her to submit her reply within one -week failing which her services would be terminated. The charges embodied in the aforestated notice were that she was not performing the work of sweeping and cleaning properly in the area assigned to her ; that complaints were pouring in relating to the work of sweeping and cleaning in the area assigned to her ; that the area assigned to her was inspected by the authority concerned and she was found absenting herself from the area and finally that she has been found whiling away her time during the period assigned to her for cleaning and sweeping of the area. It would appear that by means of the impugned order, appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the services of the petitioner have been terminated and it is this order which has been the causative factor for instituting the present petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri K. C. Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on grounds torn out of context of the notice issued to the petitioner and further that before passing the impugned order, she was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. He further submitted that since the impugned order is not attributed to be the outcome of the charges, the notice served to the petitioner cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be given the veneer of a valid notice and by this reckoning, the impugned order should be taken to have been passed without any valid notice. He further canvassed that since the order was founded on certain allegations, no opportunity was afforded to her to meet and repudiate those allegations and as such the impugned order was rendered vitiated and was liable to be quashed. It was further submitted that the order was passed without any resolution and without approval of the State. Sri H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties tried to draw a subtle distinction between the two orders one rescinding the appointment and the other terminating her services and contended in opposition that the appointment order was passed by the Executive Officer and the competent authority has passed order rescinding the appointment. He further contended that the petitioner was served with notice before passing the impugned order.