MAZID ANSARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Rule the petitioner has challenged Armexure-VIII termination notice dated 24.5.91 issued by the 3rd respondent and also the Annexure-XI discharge certificate dated 28.6.91 and prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ of like nature or direction for setting aside the impugned notice of termination and the discharge certificate.

(2.) Facts of this Civil Rule are as under : Petitioner is a trained motor vehicle driver having valid heavy motor vehicle licence. In the year 1986 he applied for the post of MT/Driver in General Raserve Engineering Force, for short "GREF". He was thereafter, appointed MT/Driver in the "GREF" on 25.5.87 and was posted at 755 Border Road Task Force. Pursuant to the order of appointment the petitioner joined sen/ice on 16.6.87. He was posted in Unit 718 Medical Staging Section, GREF. In the month of June 1988 the petitioner was served with Annexure-I show cause notice dated 23.6.88 issued by the Respondent No. 4 alleging that he was seen by one official of Task Force carrying civilian passengers in ambulance vehicle and also seen him calling passengers to go to Taliamura. When the said official, who was in civil dress approached the petitioner and disclosed his identity, he did not pay any heed to it and left the place with the vehicle. On receipt of the said show cause notice the petitioner replied to the show cause notice giving full explanation abort the incident by Annexure-II. However, in June 1988 the petitioner was served with a recordable warning issued by the 4th respondent. By the aforesaid recordable warning, the petitioner was warned and directed to obey good order, behave properly and maintain discipline. In August 1988 petitioner was issued with yet another warning by 4th respondent vide Annexure-IV Memo dated 4.8.88. yet another notice was also issued to the petitioner by the 4th respondent on 13.8.90 alleging that the authority came to know through police source that on 11.8.90 he gave lift to civilians and realised fare from them. Similar reports had also been received thereafter by the authority. By Annexure-V Memo dated 13.8.90 the petitioner was again asked to submit clarification. He submitted his clarification denying the allegations levelled against him by Annexure-VI reply. Thereafter, on 15.3.91, the petitioner was served with an extract of adverse remarks made in his ACR of 1990 by 4th respondent. In his said ACR the Initiating and Reviewing Officers made remarks about his quality of performance as "Below Average". On 29.5:91 the petitioner was served with a notice of termination by Annexure-VIII notice dated 24.5.91.

(3.) On receipt of Annexure-VIII termination notice the petitioner submitted AnnexureIX representation to the; 3rd respondent requesting him to release his salary and other dues which he was entitled to so that he could proceed to home. The petitioner also by Annexure-X representation dated 26.6.91 requested the 3rd respondent to reconsider the order of termination and to retain him in service by withdrawing the notice of termination. It is not known to the petitioner how and in what manner the representation was disposed of. But thereafter, on 28.6.91 Annexure-XI discharge certificate was issued. Hence the present petition.