SOMNATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Agra by which the petitioner's service has been terminated under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called as Rules of 1975). It appears, the petitioner was appointed as Runner after following the procedure as contained in Group 'D' Employees Service Rules 1985 First Amendment Rules 1986 after advertising the vacancy in "Dainik Jagran Newspaper". The petitioner's appointment letter dated 7.11.2007 shows that the petitioner's appointment was made while fulfilling the back log quota, on temporary basis, with the rider that the service of the petitioner can-be terminated at any time after one month notice or in lieu of notice, one month salary. It appears that for certain conduct which were contrary to the Government Servant Conduct Rules, the petitioner's service was terminated by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.6.2008, served on 2.7.2008. Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that although it is settled law that temporary Government Servants have no right to the post and their services can be terminated at any time, but simultaneously it is also equally settled that if the service is terminated on account of misconduct of an employee then without taking recourse to prove misconduct as contemplated under the relevant rules governing the field namely U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the punishment for misconduct cannot be inflicted, that too major penalty of termination from service. In his submissions the order has been passed under Rules of 1975, therefore the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and others v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, in Special Leave Petition , : (Civil) No. 277702 of 20.08 decided on 29.7.2010, wherein it has been held that if a discharge is based upon misconduct or if there is a live connection between the allegations of misconduct and discharge, then the same, even if couched in language which is not stigmatic, would amount to a punishment for which a departmental enquiry was imperative.

(2.) On the other hand learned Standing Counsel appealing for the State respondents has vehemently contended that the temporary Government servants have no right to the post and their service can be terminated at any time without any notice. In his submissions the impugned order is not stigmatic, therefore, no infirmity can be attached with the impugned order of termination.

(3.) I have heard Sri Adarsh Bhusan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.