VINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an order dated 10.4.1996 in Writ Petition No. 949 of 1995, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent No. 1, viz., the District Magistrate, Mau by order dated 8.8.1996 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Shri Alik Kumar Yadav. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's case has been refused on two grounds. viz., that the recovery by the petitioner as collection Amin was less and that his conduct was unbecoming of a Government servant. According to him. this order has reflected a stigma and as such the said order could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. He next contends that the persons having lesser recovery than the petitioner have been retained and regularised. Therefore, there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in comparison with the petitioner and those retained in service having lesser recovery in their credit. According to him, this order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Shri R. K. Saxena, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that this was not an order of termination but a decision on the representation which has been considered in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, The observation made in the order dated 8.8.1995 is based on record which is also admitted by the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit. Therefore it cannot be said that it has put any stigma. He also contends that recovery of the petitioner is far less than 70% and. therefore, he could not be considered according to the rules for filling up of 35% quota of vacancies. According to him, the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons having lesser recovery in their credit have been retained and that the petitioner has been singled out cannot be sustained in the absence of specific pleadings made out in the writ petition. The observations recorded in the order dated 8.8.1996 are all findings of fact which are not disputed viz., neither the percentage of recovery is being disputed nor the lodging of the F.I.R. is being disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere in the matter.