ARUNESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 6 -10 -1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi. ordering the termination of the services of the Petitioner (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and order dated 12 -10 -1989 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Varanasi terminating the services of the Petitioner with Immediate effect, in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 6 -10 -1989. The Petitioner was appointed by the orders of the Additional District Magistrate (P.R.O.), Varanasi on ad hoc basis as peon in Varanasi Tehsil with effect from 15 -9 -85 to 13 -11 -85, 1 -3 -86 to 25 -4 -86, 15 -9 -86 to 19 -10 -86, 1 -2 -87 to 7 -3 -87, 21 -6 -87 to 29 -2 -88, 1 -4 -88 to 15 -8 -88 and 26 -8 -88 to 29 -9 -88. Later the Petitioner was selected by the Selection Board along with 13 other persons for appointment on the permanent basis by a letter dated 7 -7 -1987. Later on by an order dated 28 -1 -1988 the District Magistrate, Varanasi appointed Petitioner on the post of peon in scale of Rs. 305 -390 in Tehsil Bhadohi. Since then, i.e. with effect from 1 -2 -1989 the Petitioner was serving continuously. The Petitioner received letter dated 12 -8 -1989 sent by the District Magistrate, Varanasi to the effect that his services were terminated in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 6 -10 -1989. The Petitioner stated that he could not know as to bow in what circumstances his services were terminated in view of the order dated 6 -10 -1989. He made application to the District Magistrate for getting a copy of the order dated 6 -10 -1989. An endorsement dated 6 -10 -1989 was made by the Issuing Clerk on the application of the Petitioner:

(2.) THE Petitioner stated that his wife died in his village Prasurampur on 25 -7 -1989 when he was not there in the village. He stated to be at Bhadohi Tehsil from where he used to go to his village only in holidays. The death of Petitioner's wife was not a natural death. Petitioner's father had lodged a FIR with the police. It was stated In the FIR that when the father of the Petitioner, the informant, reached the village house, he knocked the door, but there was no response. The window was not shut. On pushing the window pan, he found the wife of the Petitioner lying dead on the cot. He sent message through his nephew Lal Chandra Sharma to the Petitioner for calling him. After the Petitioner came to the village, the report was lodged.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner placed before this Court the provisions of Rule 1 (2) of punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, U.P. The provisions of the said Rule 1A (1) (2) are quoted as under: