HARI SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. COMMISSIONER JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.3.1996 and 15.10.1992, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Annexures-12 and 5 respectively.

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk by the District Planning Officer in the department of Planning Office district Jalaun in the year, 1967. As has been pleaded by the petitioner In the year, 1976, as he did not obey the direction of the authorities of getting family planning operation done, his services were terminated in the year 1976 itself. Against this, petitioner made representation before the respondent No. 1 who after considering the facts allowed the petitioner's claim and directed for his reinstatement by order dated 26th July, 1976. In the order of the respondent No, 1 which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it has been found that serious lapses and vindictive attitude was adopted by the authorities in terminating the petitioner's service. In pursuance of the order of respondent No. 1, petitioner was reinstated and thereafter he was made permanent on the post of Junior Clerk on 1.4.1979 and he was given promotion also on the post of Senior Clerk by order dated 14.11.1979 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). It has been stated that as the authorities were annoyed on account of the decision of the respondent No. 1 having gone in petitioner's favour, they Issued a notice dated 20.5.1982 by which explanation was called In respect to the absence of the petitioner from duty on certain dates. The notice dated 20.5.1982 states that within three days explanation is to come failing which petitioner will be placed under suspension. This notice dated 20.5.1982 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that by an order of the same date dated 20.5.1982 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), petitioner was ordered to be reverted on the post of Junior Clerk. Petitioner started representing the matter through proper channel against the order dated 20.5.1982 against his reversion and it is at this stage, it has been claimed by the petitioner that he fell ill w.e.f. 30.9.1982. In respect to the petitioner's ailment as has been pleaded in the writ petition vide paragraphs 17 and 22, due information was given by the petitioner's wife from time to time, along with medical certificate and it is only after recovery from ailment, petitioner gave his joining on 25.10.1986. As Assistant Engineer refused to accept joining, petitioner made representation to the District Development Officer and after repeated representation/reminders petitioner came to know on 10.5.1988 that his services had been terminated as far back as on 15.10. 1982. It is on coming to know about the order dated 15.10.1982, on 10.5.1988 petitioner claims that he filed representation on 11.5.1988 to the respondent No. 1 which came to be decided by the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 25.3.1996, after order of this Court dated 17.1.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 2113 of 1996. Respondent No. 1 rejected petitioner's representation by the aforesaid order dated 25.3.1996 which made the petitioner aggrieved to come up to this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that there has been no adverse entry to the petitioner's credit and his services has been throughout satisfactory right from 1967 onwards and it is only in the year 1976 that the petitioner was subjected to undue harassment when petitioner's services were terminated, that too was set-aside by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner came to be reinstated. Learned counsel submits that it is on account of setting-aside the vindictive action of the respondent by the order of the Commissioner dated 26.7.1976, a notice was given on 20.5.1982 to submit explanation about his absence on certain dates but on the same date, i.e., 20.5.1982 order of reversion was passed. It has been further submitted that although the matter about reversion of the petitioner was being pursued by the petitioner by filing representation/ reminders and it is in the meantime petitioner's service was terminated by the order dated 15.10.1982, as passed by the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel argues that the Impugned order of the respondent No. 2 is apparently arbitrary, punitive and is without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.