Court No. - 62 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10133 of 2001 Petitioner :- Ramji Chaurasia Respondent :- I.G.Police(Training) U.P.Lucknow & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Vijay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent.
Since, the pleadings between the parties have already been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself in terms of Rules of the Court.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Inspector General of Police (Training), U.P., Lucknow, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 20.9.1994 terminating the services of the petitioner passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Training School, Gorakhpur, U.P. has been affirmed.
Brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Follower (Bhisti) on temporary basis and was continuously paid his salaries as a Class-IV employee. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.9.1994 passed by the respondent no.2, services of the petitioner were terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 after giving one month's notice as his services are no more required.
Against the said order, appeal was filed, but since the appeal of the petitioner was not decided, he filed Writ Petition No. 7182 of 2000, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months. Thereafter, the respondent no.1- Inspector General of Police (Training), U.P., Lucknow dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 13.6.2000.
The appellate authority recorded that the post on which the petitioner was working at Police Training School, Gorakhpur, is not a sanctioned post. Further, it is recorded that the petitioner has not worked to the satisfaction of the authorities and he remained absent for a long period without sanction of leave. It is further recorded that petitioner was not interested in doing job and want to appoint his brother in his place, therefore, he was habitual to remain unauthorized absent and not serious in doing work.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, it is stated that he remained absent on several occasions and in this regard, an enquiry was conducted in which it is found that petitioner is habitual to remain absent and after conducting the said enquiry, his services were terminated. The relevant paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit is quoted as under:
“;g fd ;kph jketh pkSjfl;k dks iqfyl izf'k{k.k fon~;ky;] xksj[kiqj eas fnukda 23-5-88 dks fnukda 24-5-88 ls vLFkkbZ Qkyksoj ¼fHk'rh½ ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA ;kph tc lsok eas Fkk rc ckj&ckj vuqifLFkr gksrk jgk] ftlds dkj.k mls fcuk osru vodk'k Lohd`r djuk iM+rk FkkA fn0 5-8-94 ls 8 fnol Lohd`r 'kqnk vodk'k ij x;k ckn lekIr vodk'k fn0 13-8-94 dks viuh fM;wVh ij mls vkuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq ;g vodk'k gsrq u rks dksbZ izkFkZuk i= fn;k vkSj u gh vk;k rFkk xSjgkftj pyrk jgk bl laca/k eas tkWp djkbZ xbZ] tc tkWp ls ik;k x;k fd ;g vusdkas ckj xSjgkftj gqvk vkSj vuqifLFkr gksus dk vknh gS vkSj fnukad 13-8-94 ls fujUrj vuqifLFkr py jgk gS QyLo:i tkWp ds mijkUr vkns'k la[;k%& &t&4@94 fnukad 20-9-94 }kjk mlds lsok lekIr dj nh xbZA”
The order of the Disciplinary Authorities clearly indicates that petitioner was a temporary servant, therefore, his services were terminated simpliciter under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service), Rules, 1975, but the appellate order as well as counter filed on behalf of the respondent, it is apparent that the order terminating his services has been passed as a result of enquiry, which was the foundation of termination, is pre-emptive and the order of termination is innocuous order.
The language in the order of termination is very innocuous and apparently, it is not an order of termination simpliciter, but the real nature of the order after examining the entire records i.e. the appellate order as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, this Court come to the conclusion that there has been some foundation for passing the termination order and the same has been passed in violation of the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court in case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar, (2008) 2 SCC 479 held that after holding preliminary enquiry (behind the back of the probation), his services have been terminated by innocuous order as a result of the enquiry, which was the foundation of the termination is pre-emptive as well as liable to be set aside.
Under these circumstances, the orders dated 13.6.2000 and 20.9.1994 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.
Since, the petitioner was a temporary employee and has not worked since the date of his termination order, therefore, he is not entitled for any back wages/salary, however, he is only reinstated in the same capacity as he was holding his post prior to his termination order.
Writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Noman