RAM NAGINA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners' services have been terminated by respondent No. 2. THE present writ petition is filed against the said orders of termination which are contained in Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioners' case is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Amin about 13 years ago and petitioner No. 2 was appointed about 9 years ago, as Amin. THEir services were liable to be regularised because they were appointed against permanent vacancies. Instead their services were terminated and the termination order is said to be by way of punishment. It is also contended that the petitioners' appointing authority was the District Magistrate but their services have been terminated by the S.D.M. THE impugned orders do not disclose any ground for termination of the petitioners' services except that the petitioners' services were not required any more.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the standing counsel The relevant materials produced before me was also considered. I examined the pleadings of the parties also. On the face of it, the termination order of the petitioner appears as innocuous and simplicitor. After lifting the veil from it, it appears that the order of termination is not simplicitor as was contended by learned standing counsel. For termination of the petitioners' services there is some reason which has been detailed out in the counter affidavit. The reason being low collection made by the petitioners and there being some short-comings in performance of their duties. If this is the reason for the petitioners' discharge from the services then the petitioners' removal from the services is not simplicitor or innocuous, but would appear to be as a measure of punishment. If the order of termination is passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, that order cannot be sustained because that would be in flagrant violation of Article 311 of the Constitution It was imperative for the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioners to explain their conduct and to show cause why they did not collect the dues upto the mark and why there were short-comings in their functioning Unless this was done the petitioners' services even though they were temporary could not be dispensed with. From the reading of the counter affidavit it transpires that the petitioner's work was not satisfactory and for unsatisfactory work they have beers given warnings also and their work has been termed as not upto the mark and in the opinion of the respondents there were short-comings in their functioning