SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Class IV employee, a Peon in the Establishment of the District Treasury, Budaun, is aggrieved by an order dtd. 31/7/1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun, terminating his services after disciplinary proceedings, and the appellate order dtd. 13/2/2014, passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, dismissing his departmental appeal and affirming the order of the District Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee (Peon) with the District Treasury, Budaun in the year 1975 by the District Magistrate, Budaun. He was, later on, confirmed in service. Upon the establishment of a sub-treasury at Ujhani, District Budaun, the petitioner was transferred from headquarters to the sub-treasury at Ujhani on 9/12/1989. It is the petitioner's case that after rendering a few years of service at Ujhani, the Sub Treasury Officer 'STO' [for short] passed an order dtd. 8/11/1991, providing that the petitioner will discharge all duties at the sub-treasury relating to drawing up of accounts, pension vouchers, clearance of bills, all of which he would do as in the past, under the STO's oral directions. The petitioner says he was a Peon, but the STO illegally and arbitrarily, passed the order dtd. 8/11/1991, directing him to discharge the duties of a Clerk. It is the petitioner's case that the STO threatened the petitioner that his services would be terminated if he did not carry out his directions, detailed in the order dtd. 8/11/1991. The petitioner says that the order dtd. 8/11/1991 could never have been made by the STO, because it was illegal to take the work of a Clerk from a Class IV employee.

(3.) The petitioner wrote a letter to the Sub Treasury Officer, Budaun with a request that though a Peon, he had been directed to undertake the duties of a Clerk, under the oral directions of the STO; and therefore, if any mistake occurs on the petitioner's part, he cannot be held responsible, for obvious reasons. The STO, upon coming to know of the letter dtd. 8/11/1991, passed a further order, which reads :