RAM DUTT AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri Vimal Chandra Misra learned Counsel who appears for respondents No. 2, 3 and 5. Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner was working substantively since 1986 as Head Master in Prathamik Vidyalaya, District Banda. He had proceeded on a day's casual leave on 30th July, 2003 and on the same day he was put under suspension on account of unauthorized absence from duty. However, this order of suspension was revoked on 15. 5. 2004 and the communication to the said effect was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 19th August, 2004. It is said that despite the suspension order being revoked the petitioner was not allowed to join at the institution on the pretext that he had hot produced the order of reinstatement. Accordingly, the petitioner demanded the order of reinstatement which was not supplied to him and as a result he could not rejoin. THEreafter, a notice was published in the newspaper 'amar Ujala' dated 25. 3. 2005 requiring the petitioner to join the institution before 30th March, 2005, failing which. a disciplinary action was contend plated against him for termination of his services. It appears that the petitioner could not join despite publication of the aforesaid notice in the newspaper and continued to insist for supply of the copy of the order of reinstatement. Thus, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda by the impugned order dated 17. 5. 2005 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to resume his duties and has illegally absented himself despite notice dated 25. 3. 2005. Aggrieved by this order of termination the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry or a disciplinary enquiry against him.