SADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. C. Misra, J. Heard Shri Rajesh Nath Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. On the joint request of learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed off at this stage in terms of the High Court Rules.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was duly recruited on 13-10-1998 after selection in 30 Bn. , PAC, Gonda. On 10-2-2000 the petitioner applied for leave for a period of 13 days, which was sanctioned by the respondents on 16-2-2000, the petitioner was bitten by a mad dog and was placed under medical treatment. However, he joined his services on 24-2-2000 and applied for further 7 days leave for treatment which was sanctioned by the concerned authority due to reaction of the dog bite and was admitted in District Hospital, Ghazipur and was being treated there. He was issued fitness certificate on 7-11-2000. During the period of his treatment he sent informations to the respondents including the medical certificate from time to time requesting extension of his leave till date of his complete fitness, through registered post. After getting fitness certificate on 7-11-2000 the petitioner reached the Bn. and submitted his joining but the respondents refused to accept the joining of the petitioner and served him with impugned ex parte termination order dated 21-8-2000 without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to him or even without conducting any inquiry. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the impugned order, being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Sections 8 and 14 of the U. P. Police Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and filed the present writ petition seeking relief in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 21-8-2000 and further directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with salary and back wages.

(3.) I find that there is no denial by the respondents in the counter-affidavit to the averments of the petitioner that no charge-sheet had been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him to meet the charges.