ABDUL QADEER ALIAS ABDUL QADIR Vs. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT BHARAT BHAKT SAMAJ UCHCHTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as peon in Bharat Bhakt Samaj Uchchatar Madhymik Vidyalaya, Beonja, district-Banda. He was a confirmed peon. He absents himself from duty with effect from 1-5-1986. He was paid his salary till April 1986. His salary was not paid for May, 1986. He moved an application before the principal of the institution for payment of his salary. He also filed a representation before the Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi region, but nothing was done and the salary of the petitioner was not paid. He filed the instant writ petition claiming salary. This court by its judgment dated 20-4-1995 allowed the writ petition and directed payment of salary to petitioner. The committee of the management moved an application for recoiling the judgment dated 20-4-1995 on the ground that the petitioner's services have been terminated by order dated 1-5-1986 and since the termination order has not been challenged by the petitioner the order dated 20-4-1995 be recalled. This court, on 22-9-1995, recalled its judgment dated 20-4 1995. The petitioner thereafter filed an amendment application challenging the termination order to which a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. The amendents application was allowed.

(2.) I have heard Sri I. A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri V. K. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Miss Minakshi Sharma learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5 and Sri Rakesh Kumar learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6.

(3.) "Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner's services were never terminated by the respondents and the entire proceedings were fabricated by the respondents. He further urged that the petitioner was a permanent employee and the entire disciplinary proceedings were carried out behind the back of the petitioner contrary to principles of natural justice. Lastly, he urged that the petitioner's services have been terminated on 20-8-1986 on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer has not recorded any reason to show that the charge against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of such an inquiry report the petitioner's services could not be terminated. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that since the petitioner did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings there was not option left with the inquiry officer but proceed ex-party. Since there was no defence from the side of the petitioner, no reasons were required to be recorded by the inquiry officer in support of his finding.