RAMENDRA NATH Vs. MANDI SAMITI SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These connected writ petitions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court of which two of us were Members. At the time of hearing of these writ petitions, from the record which was produced, it was found that on the ground of issuing forged Gate-passes passed by the petitioners, a First Information Report was lodged on 19th December, 1979 by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Jaffarganj, Sultanpur, and the petitioners, who were employees of the Mandi Samiti, Sultanpur, were arrested and after three days were released on bail. Ultimately the police submitted final report in the case. The petitioners were attached to Mandi Samiti, but salary was not paid to them although they applied for it. The Secretary, Mandi Samiti referred the matter to the Director of the Mandi Samiti and the director vide letter dated 27th November, 1979 directed the Mandi Samiti to terminate the services of such employees including the petitioners in term of Cl.II of the appointment order by paying one month's salary in lieu of notice. It was also mentioned in the said letter dated 27th November, 1979 which is on record, that no reference of said letter be made in the termination order. On 6th and 7th March, 1980 the Mandi Samities were dissolved including the Mandi Samiti of Jafarganj and the petitioners' services were terminated on 10th March, 1980 and it was provided in the order that in lieu of one month's notice, one month's salary will be paid to the petitioners.

(2.) From the record, which was produced, it appears that the Superintendent of Police recommended that action against the petitioners be taken and their services may be terminated. One Paras Nath filed Writ Petition No. 613 of 1980 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st August, 1980 on the ground that it was contractual matter and the opposite parties were within their right to terminate petitioner's service. When the services of the petitioners were terminated statutory rules were not in existence and they came in force after two years. The writ petition came up before the Division Bench of which two of us were Members and we found it difficult, after perusing the record, to agree with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 613 of 1980, and that is why the matter was referred to larger Bench.

(3.) The facts are clear that the petitioners were arrested, kept behind the bar and were placed under suspension and the Superintendent of Police recommended that their services may be terminated. The Mandi Samiti passed resolution for retention of their services and after dissolution of the Mandi Samitis, the services of the petitioners were terminated in pursuance of the orders passed by the Director of the Mandi Samiti and from the fact it is quite evident that the arrest of the petitioners led to the termination of their services as was desired by the Superintendent of Police and directed by the Director of Mandi Samiti. No opportunity of hearing was given though ultimately final report was submitted by the police in respect of the offence which was said to have been committed by them.