MOHD RAFIQUE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The two petitioners have challenged their respective termination by orders dated 17-6-1991 at Annexures 16 and 17 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed initially on ad hoc basis and thereafter they were appointed against clear vacancies from the post of Class IV. Petitioner No. 1 was so appointed on 29-11-1988 and the petitioner No. 2 on 1-11-1988.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the letter dated 2-4-1991 at Annexure-15-A to the writ petition for contending that the termination of the petitioners though was termination simpliciter but actually the same was by way of punishment. Reference was also made to the statements made in the counter-affidavit disclosing serious charges against the petitioner with a contention that in such facts termination was not valid and proper. Facts have been stated in the counter- affidavit regarding illegalities in the matter of appointment of the petitioners claiming that there was no proper appointment even. Petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavit.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts of the case as also the law referred to, I find that the termination of petitioners' service though appear to be termination simpliciter but in fact the same was passed by reason of strong allegations of serious nature as disclosed in the counter-affidavit and relied on in support of the impugned orders. Admittedly, petitioners were not given any opportunity before passing the said termination orders.