MERAJ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined as 'Vaccinator' in the Animal Husbandry Department, Gonda. He continued to work as a temporary employee when he was implicated in a criminal case on 27.3.1984. On 9.4.1984 petitioner's services were terminated by Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department by an order of termination simpliciter . The petitioner remained in jail from 27.3.1984 till 11.10.1985 when he was acquitted in S.T. No. 102 of 1984 by Special Sessions Judge, Sultanpur. A criminal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 11.10.1985 but the same was rejected by the High Court on 17.9.1986. On acquittal the petitioner submitted an application to the District Live Stock Officer, Sultanpur for joining his services on 30.10.1985. Nothing was done. Petitioner submitted another representation on 8.11.1985 before the Director, Animal Husbandry. When no action was taken petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 8550 of 1987 before the Hon'ble High Court. Meanwhile, on 7.2.1989 the Additional Director, Animal Husbandry, Lucknow gave fresh appointment to the petitioner on his undertaking dated 7.2.1989 that he wilfully accepts fresh appointment on the post of 'Pasudhan Prasar Nirikshak'. On this assurance a fresh appointment letter was issued on 17.4.1989. The petitioner joined on the post of 19.4.1989. Later on Writ Petition No. 8550 of 1987 was decided on 4.9.1988. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 4.9.1998 passed following order:

(2.) Petitioner filed representation on 27.9.1998 before the Deputy Director, Devi Patan Mandal, Faizabad along with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court praying for continuity in service. The petitioner says that his representation has not been decided and he is not being given the continuity of service. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have taken two grounds, firstly that the working of the petitioner was dissatisfactory and secondly, there was an adverse entry against the petitioner.

(3.) Sri. Abid Ali has forcefully argued that these averments in the counter affidavit are absolutely false and can be rebutted easily. He says that petitioner started working in 1979 and there has been no complaint against him till the date of termination. So far the adverse entry is concerned the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court towards C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the learned Standing Counsel. Adverse entry was never communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, on closer look it does not appear to be an adverse entry at all. Petitioner entered into a scuffle on which he was transferred. There was some inquiry to be made but it is not clear whether any inquiry was conducted or not. If any inquiry was conducted termination will become a major punishment and not the termination simpliciter . In any case it cannot be treated as an adverse entry.