JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order of termination dated 28.7.1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Administration) Sales Tax Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur. respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, and the order dated 16.2.1993 passed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal No. IV. Lucknow, rejecting the petitioner's Claim Petition No. 363/F/IV/86, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ, petition. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages with effect from the date of termination, i.e.. 28.7.1986.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Commissioner (Legal) Sales Tax. Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 3 on 11th January, 1979, on the post of peon in the Sales Tax Department. The appointment was purely temporary and was liable to be terminated at any point of time by giving either one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof.

(3.) On 4th February, 1985. the petitioner was suspended. The Sales Tax Officer (A) Azamgarh, was appointed as enquiry officer and he served two charge-sheets, dated 27th April, 1985, upon the petitioner containing certain charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation and also appeared in person before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report. However, the Assistant Commissioner (Administration) Sales Tax, Gorakhpur Range. Gorakhpur, vide order dated 28.7.1986. terminated the services of the petitioner by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. The said order recites that the services of the petitioner are no longer required and, therefore, his services are being terminated. The petitioner has alleged that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No, 2. Even though the order of termination dated 28th July. 1986. recites that the services of the petitioners are no longer required, yet the said order has been passed on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and. therefore, it amounts to punishment. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18th July. 1986. before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, by filing a claim petition. The State of U. P. and other respondents filed their reply to the said claim petition before the Tribunal and in paragraphs 4 and 10 of the counter-affidavit, they had admitted that the order of termination was passed on the enquiry report. The U. P. Public Service Tribunal vide order dated 16.2.1993 dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.7.1986 and 16.2.1993 in the present writ petition on the ground that the termination order was passed on the enquiry report and, thus, the foundation of the impugned orders was admittedly the enquiry report and charges levelled against the petitioner. The said order could have been only passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in absence of it. it cast stigma. The procedures adopted by the authority concerned clearly amount to circumventing the procedure prescribed under Article 3 U of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further contends that once the enquiry is concluded and report is submitted, the order of termination found on the said enquiry report cannot be treated as a simpliciter order of termination and, therefore, it is wholly illegal, contrary to law and cannot be sustained.