Court No. - 6 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6156 of 1999 Petitioner :- Som Veer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Petitioner Counsel :- M.Tauseef Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri M. Tausif, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Supervisor in
the office of opposite party no. 4- Superintendent, Rajkiya Kishore Grih, Syah
Chandpur, District Bijnor. The petitioner worked and continued on the post of
Supervisor for three years. When it was discovered by the opposite parties
that the appointment order on the basis of which the petitioner was working,
was allegedly forged document. The opposite parties lodged an FIR at police
station Bijnor. The petitioner was arrested and later on, was released on bail.
The petitioner was neither placed under suspension nor any formal
termination order was ever issued. However, when the petitioner requested for
joining the post after his release on bail, the opposite parties neither allowed
him to resume his duties nor pass any order. The petitioner filed this writ
petition, in which on 3.12.1999 interim order was passed that the opposite
parties may decide the representation of the petitioner. Same has been decided
vide annexure- 12. The petitioner, by way of amendment, challenged the
decision passed on the representation and the counter- affidavit was called for
from the opposite parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in para-7 of the
counter- affidavit. Reply has been given as quoted:- ” Accordingly FIR has
been lodged at P.S. Bijnor against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in
respect of forged appointment, criminal case has been lodged, therefore,
neither the petitioner’s services has been terminated nor he has been
suspended but when the petitioner has been released from jail, then he has not
been allowed to join duties in view of the facts that his appointment was
forged.” Further in para-9 and 10, it has been admitted by the opposite parties
that the signatures on the appointment letter were that of Mr. H.N. Dubey,
who was Chief Probation Officer having full authority to appoint class III
employee, like the petitioner. In para-11, the opposite parties have
categorically stated that ” since criminal case had been lodged against the
petitioner, therefore, departmental proceedings had not been initiated.”
Petitioner’s counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in
case crime no.91 of 1994 trial no. 731 of 1998. The acquittal order passed by
II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor has been annexed as annexure-7 to
the writ petition. In this order at page- 31, it is mentioned that the petitioner
has been acquitted of all the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
I.P.C. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the
ground that there was no information of the appointment of the petitioner at
the Directorate level. Moreover, the appointment letter, which was though
issued by the appointing authority, was considered to be a private
appointment and the Government was held not to be responsible for payment
of salary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that when FIR was lodged, criminal
proceeding was initiated and the trial court has acquitted the petitioner, there
stands nothing between him and his services, in which he was continuing
prior to lodging of the F.I.R. No departmental inquiry has been conducted.
The petitioner was never given show- cause notice. He was never suspended.
No inquiry was conducted, no evidence was adduced and even no termination
order was passed. In such a situation, the opposite parties cannot refuse the
joining of the petitioner, simply on their conjuncture and surmises that some
bungling has been made, which has not been proved in the trial court. In the
absence of any termination order and in the absence of any departmental
inquiry having been conducted and in view of the acquittal of the petitioner
from the trial from criminal proceedings and the clear admission of all these
facts in the counter- affidavit, there is no option except to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner was validly appointed. He has worked for three
years. While adjudicating the petitioner’s case, the trial court clearly observed
that there appears to be requirement of general inquiry about the
appointments, which have been made by Mr. H.N. Dubey in the Social
Welfare Department, still the opposite parties have not initiated any inquiry in
this regard.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order
dated 28.12. 1999 passed by the Director, Mahila Kalyan, U.P., Lucknow as
contained in annexure- 12 to the writ petition, by way of decision on the
representation, which is totally unreasonable and arbitrary having no legal
basis, is hereby, quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the
petitioner, forthwith in service with effect from the date the F.I.R. was lodged
and he was stopped from working.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
Sadiq