A K SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the orders passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Writ Petition No. 2295 of 1978 has been filed by an employee who has been removed from service by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, which was preferred prior to the removal order being passed against some earlier orders, and his claim has also been rejected by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Writ Petition No. 23 of 1978 has been preferred by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation against the order by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal setting aside the order terminating the services of the Opposite Party to the said writ petition. As the question, whether the employees of the U. P. Government Roadways working in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation after its coming into existence who have not yet been formally absorbed in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation will continue to be Government servants or are to be deemed to be employees of the Corporation arises in these petitions they are being decided together.

(2.) THE petitioner to Writ Petition No. 2296 of 1978 was initially appointed as a general grade clerk on 1-12-1951 in the U. P. Government Roadways and was later on confirmed with effect from 14-1956. The post held by him was re designated as Office Assistant Grade II with effect from 17th March, 1962. He was promoted to the post of Office Assistant Grade I in compliance with the orders passed by the State Government contained in Government orders Nos. 1--302-32-65 and 4677-30-2-527, dated 7th February, 1973 and 15th November, 1973. After coming into existence the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner was serving under it and certain disciplinary proceedings were taken against him, where after he was dismissed from service.

(3.) THE dismissal order has been questioned by the petitioner on number of grounds including that he was still a Government servant, as such no disciplinary action could be taken against him by the "corporation". It has also been questioned on the ground that he has been dismissed from service by an authority who was not his appointing authority but was below the rank of the appointing authority, who had no jurisdiction and authority to do so. The disciplinary proceedings have also been questioned on the ground that they were not in accordance with law and were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.