Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24435 of 2007 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Gautam Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.R. Sirohi,Niraj Upadhaya Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ambrish Chatterji, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Amit
Sthalekar, Sri Sirohi and Sri Rajeev Gupta, as counsel for respondents.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by respondent
No.2 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) terminating the services of petitioner on
the ground that he is guilty of indiscipline, insubordination and misconduct.
It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that said order of
termination is prima-facie stigmatic, therefore, without holding enquiry and
without complying the procedure as provided under the law, services of
petitioner cannot be terminated. It has also been brought to the notice of the
Court that similar Writ Petition No.9127 of 2007 in the case of Indra Deo
Vs. State of U.P. and others (decided on 2.9.2009) as well as Writ Petition
No.2641 of 2007 Anis Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. and others (decided on
18.11.2009) has already been allowed and this Court in Writ Petition
No.9127 of 2007 (Indra Deo Vs. State of U.P.) has passed the following
orders:-
“In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
24.11.2006 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) passed by District Judge,
Bareilly, respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 however is
granted liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law. In case the District Judge decides within one
month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order to hold an
enquiry against the petitioner, he shall be deemed under suspension till the
enquiry is completed and during this period the petitioner shall be paid
subsistence allowance. The question of payment of salary for the period the
petitioner remained out of employment as well as wages during the period of
suspension except subsistence allowance, as directed above, shall be decided
by the District Judge in the light of the final decision. The District Judge shall
complete the departmental enquiry within six months subject to cooperation
of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not
cooperate it is always open to disciplinary authority to proceed in
accordance with law. In case the District Judge decides not to hold further
enquiry the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No order
as to cost.”
Learned counsel for respondents does not dispute this fact.
In view of aforesaid fact, there is no occasion to pass a different order, as
such, petitioner is also entitled to get same relief. The writ petition is allowed.
The order impugned dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) is hereby
quashed and liberty is given to the District Judge to pass appropriate orders if
he thinks fit after holding enquiry as provided under the Rules within a period
of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
SKD