VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgement of a learned Single Judge dated 10 April 2013 by which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant to challenge an order of termination from service has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was appointed by the second respondent in the Directorate of Prosecution as an Orderly on a temporary basis by a letter dated 24 February 1987. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 29 January 2002 stating that on 18 December 2001, he was assigned duties to the Camp Office of the Director General. It was alleged that the appellant had willfully not complied with the administrative direction as a result of which he had displayed gross indiscipline and breach of directions. A memo setting out inter alia the direction dated 18 December 2001, the finding contained in the preliminary inquiry dated 24 December 2001 and a list of witnesses by which the charge was to be established was furnished together with the charge sheet. A regular departmental inquiry was convened. On 20 March 2002, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Director General. The inquiry report contained a detailed analysis of the evidence which was produced during the course of inquiry. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the appellant had willfully not remained present when he was directed to report to the residence-cum-camp office of the Director General on 20 December 2001. The appellant was held to be guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, upon the receipt of the inquiry report, the second respondent passed an order dated 3 April 2002 purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred by The Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, terminating the services of the appellant on the ground that in view of his indiscipline and the breach of administrative directions, the services of the appellant were no longer required.

(3.) The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before the learned Single Judge, the specific contention which was raised by the appellant was that the termination was penal in nature on the ground of indiscipline and hence an order passed under Rule 3 (1) of the 1975 Rules was unlawful. The appellant submitted that the Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution has held that the safeguards available to permanent government servants thereunder are equally available to temporary government servants.