AMIRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 and 3, Sri A. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 4 and 5. With the consent of parties learned counsel, writ petition is finally decided at the admission stage. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 01. 09. 2008 passed by the opposite party no. 5 by which the payment of salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the construction work of school building assigned to him within the stipulated period of time i. e. 31. 08. 2008. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is without any authority of law and without jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no provision empowering the opposite party no. 5 to stop the payment of salary to the petitioner on the ground of non-completion of construction work of school building within the stipulated period of time. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity of hearing although the same carries civil consequences. The law is settled that the payment of salary of an employee cannot be stopped without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has failed to cite any provisions of law under which the impugned order has been passed. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order which has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without there being any legal provisions empowering the opposite party no. 5 to stop the payment of salary of the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the order, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 01. 09. 2008 passed by the opposite party no. 5, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to pass afresh order in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. .