STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AVADHESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 5.2.1998 passed by the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal. Lucknow, allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of termination dated 18.11.1988 passed by petitioner No. 3. Prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus for a" direction to the respondent No. 2 not to implement the impugned order has also been made.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Clerk in Industries Department. Eastern Zone. Varanasi, on 23.12.1963. The services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated by petitioner No. 3 the Joint Director of Industry. Eastern Zone. Varanasi, by order dated 18.11.1988. Challenging the validity of the said order respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 4 of U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act. 1975, pleading that his services, prior to the impugned termination was passed, were once terminated by an incompetent authority. The validity of which was challenged by the said respondent and ultimately the said order was set aside by respondent No. 2 with the direction that the said respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to dearness and other allowances and to other benefits from the date of termination. It was stated that although the respondent No. 1 was permitted to join his duties but the amount of arrears of salary and allowances was not paid, inspite of repeated demands. But by repeated demands made by the said respondent the General Manager, District Industry Centre. Ballia, got annoyed and he started manoeuvring grounds against him with a view to dismiss him from service. It was on 16.4.1988 the said respondent was granted station leave and was permitted to go to Jaunpur for one day ; but on arrival at Jaunpur he suddenly fell 111." He was initially treated at P.H.C. Somi, district Jaunpur. The Medical Officer of P.H.C. advised him to take complete rest. On account of illness, the respondent No. 1 had to apply for grant of medical leave with effect from 18.4.1988 to 11.5.1988. As the illness of the respondent No. 1 continued, therefore, he had to apply for extension of leave twice and ultimately he was hospitalised at District Hospital, Jaunpur, on 26.10.1988. He was discharged therefrom on 4.11.1988. Thereafter 6.11.1988 being Sunday, therefore, he submitted his joining report on 7.11.1988 before the District Magistrate. Ballia, as General Manager, District Industry Centre, Ballia, was not present in the office on the said date. It was pleaded that the respondent No. 1 started signing the attendance register with effect from 7.11.1988 but he was not allotted work by the General Manager inspite of his requests and applications. It was on 16.11.1988 that the respondent No. 1 attended the office signed the attendance register and sent all the relevant papers pertaining to his illness to the Joint Director of Industries by post complaining that the General Manager was not permitting him to join. On 16.11.1988 the respondent No. 1 also came to know that the General Manager made a complaint against him to the effect that the said respondent absented from duty, suppressing the leave application and medical certificate submitted by him. On the basis of the said complaint, the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 18.11.1988 which was communicated to the said respondent on 25.11.1988. It was pleaded that the order of termination was actually, the order of punishment and was also passed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the persons who have Juniors to the respondent No. 1 were retained in service and the services of the said respondent were dispensed with and that the order of termination was passed in violation of provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The petitioners have contested the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 pleading that the order of termination was passed in the terms and conditions of the order of appointment and in accordance with the provision of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. that the leave application filed by the respondent No. 1 was not finalised, he was granted leave without pay for 285 days, and for 188 days on half salary, that he Indulged in making complaint against the General Manager, District Industry Centre. Ballia, to the Joint Director, Industry. Eastern Zone, VaranasI and was guilty of misconduct. It was pleaded that charge-sheet was framed against the respondent No. 1; but the same was not Issued and his services were terminated in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. The claim petition according to the petitioners was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.