LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-244

LALMAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On May 02, 2014
LALMAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Executive Engineer, Nalkup Khand, Mahrajganj, respondent no.2 on the ground that a legal advice of the Senior Prosecuting Officer and the District Government Counsel was received that the petitioner can be terminated from service and the salary drawn by him (for a certain period) is liable to be recovered from him. Accordingly in pursuance to the letter of the District Magistrate dated 20.09.2005, the petitioner, who was working as 'Seench Pravekshak' was removed from service and further direction to recover the salary withdrawn by him was also made. Aforesaid order was passed in the background that the petitioner was convicted in S.T. No.230 of 1990 (State of U.P. vs. Lalman), under Sections 307 and 452 IPC and he was detained in Gorakhpur jail from 16.01.1992 to 26.01.1992.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Tube-bell Operator in the Irrigation Department on 23.05.1969 and was regularised on the aforesaid post in August, 1970. In the year 1990, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case under Sections 307 and 452 IPC and faced trial in S.T. No. 230 of 1990. In the aforesaid case the petitioner was convicted for four years rigorous imprisonment and was taken into custody and was sent to jail on 16.01.1992. It may not be out of place to note that the main role in the aforesaid case was assigned to the petitioner that he had fired with fire arm due to which one Durgawati, informant had suffered fire arm injury and the finding was recorded against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Gorakhpur in its judgement dated 16.01.1992. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1992 (Lalman Vs. State of U.P.) in which vide order dated 21.01.1992 the petitioner was granted bail and the operation of the sentence was stayed by this Court. On 26.01.1992 the petitioner was released from jail and thereafter allegedly he informed the authority concerned about his absence from 14.01.1992 to 26.01.1992. It is alleged that leave was granted to the petitioner and he was paid salary for the month of January after deducting the salary of leave period. On 30.04.1992 the Executive Engineer, Nalkup Khand, Mahrajganj, respondent no.2 called an explanation from petitioner regarding his conviction; release from jail and stay of his conviction. In pursuance thereof the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.05.1992 and 11.05.1992. Subsequently, on 01.08.2003 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Seench Pravekshak. It further appears that the Chief Development Officer had called an explanation from the Executive Engineer regarding conviction and confinement of the petitioner in jail in pursuance to the criminal case as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of all the respondents and the rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid counter affidavit.