LALJI KUSHWAHA Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions in which common questions of law and facts have been raised. They are, therefore, proposed to be decided by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Tribhuvan Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.B. Mathur as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner-Lalji Kushwaha was appointed as Pump Operator on daily wage basis on 1.2.1977 in the office of the respondent No. 1-Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division II, U.P. Jal Nigam, Allahabad. His status was upgraded as work charge Employee w.e.f. 1.6.1978 and by order dated 22.2.1985, the services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1984, on the post of Pump Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 320-460. The petitioner was placed at serial number 10 of the list of the employees who were regularised. The petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Kausambi in Dharmpur Pey Jal Yojna. It is alleged that the petitioner fell ill on way to Kausambi and, therefore, he applied for medical leave for the period 23.4.1990 to 30.4.1990 (eight days). He joined his duties on 1.5.1990. The petitioner was called upon to explain the circumstances in which he was absent in an unauthorised manner from 23,4.1990. Though the petitioner states that he had submitted his replies to the various notices/letters issued by the respondents, the case of the respondents in short is that the petitioner did not reply to any one of the notice which were served upon him to show cause as to why he had absented himself in an unauthorised manner without applying for leave w.e.f. 23.4.1990, except the application dated 4.6.1990, which is contained in Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit, in which the petitioner has mentioned about the medical leave and has prayed for his transfer to Allahabad. In writ petition No. 33211 of 1990, the petitioner claimed the reliefs in the from of directions to the respondents to pay the salary and arrears with all benefits right from 23.4.1990 onwards besides the arrears of revised pay scale and that the respondents should not interfere with the performance of his duties as Pump Operator.

(3.) Subsequently, by an order dated 15.10.1991, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 2. This termination order has been challenged in the order writ petition No. 1819 of 1992 on the ground that the services of the petitioner have been Illegally terminated without initiating any disciplinary enquiry or to show cause. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the termination order dated 15.10.1991 be quashed and the petitioner be treated as being in service throughout. The main thrust of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the services of the petitioner as work charged employee had been regularised and he was allowed to draw salary in the pay scale of Rs. 320-460, his services could not be terminated by an order dated 15.10.1991 without holding a proper disciplinary enquiry and since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, the order of termination is in clear and flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Sri K.B. Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is a work charged employee and, therefore, he has no right to remain on the post of pump operator as he deliberately absented himself from duty right from 23.4.1990 onwards and in spite of number of letters sent to him, he did not join.