KATAR SINGH Vs. D M /COLLECTOR SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel appearing for the respondent NO.1 and Sri K. M. Misra appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The writ petition is being finally disposed of with the consent of both the parties.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the termination order dated 10.11.1993 Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are:_____

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the counter affidavit it has been stated in paragraph 4 that the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement that is why his services were dispensed with by the impugned order. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Circle Officer, Collection was made Enquiry Officer and in the enquiry it was found that the petitioner is guilty of embezzlement of the amount to the tune of Rs.9000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation of embezzlement it was decided to terminate the petitioner's services. It is relevant to note the allegation made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit for ascertaining the real cause of termination of petitioner's services. Following is the averment made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit: