Decided on May 02,2013

Ganesh Prasad Dangwal Appellant
State of Uttarakhand And Ors. Respondents


- (1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Pal, Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mrs. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioner, he was appointed way back in the year 1964 in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh in the department of Food & Supply, Lucknow. He was initially appointed as Clerk on 01.06.1964 and continued to work in the aforesaid department in Garhwal region and, thereafter, promoted as Senior Accounts Clerk, Purthi Nirikshak, Mukya Lipik, Lekhakar and Assistant Food Inspector. After rendering 16 years of continuous service, his services was terminated vide order dated 24.11.1979. The said impugned order is a termination order simpliciter, which has been passed by the authority invoking powers under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 by which after giving one month prior notice, services of a temporary employee can be terminated. Therefore, the records show that the petitioner was a temporary employee and no appointment letter & subsequent letters of promotion have been filed by the petitioner to indicate that his service was of a permanent nature or that he was in regular service or that he was promoted at any level. Only bald averments have been made by the petitioner in this regard. However, it appears that at the same time when the petitioner's services were terminated, a criminal case was also filed against him in which chargesheet was submitted by the police and he faced a trial before a criminal court. Although, no document to this effect has been filed by the petitioner but from the order of the trial court it appears that the petitioner faced a trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal and was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. i.e. a criminal breach of trust by a public servant and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The judgment of the trial court was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No. 12/- 1996 and his appeal was allowed and the order of the trial court dated 03.10.1996 was set aside. Consequently, the State preferred a Government Appeal before the High Court of Allahabad and after the enforcement of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 the said government appeal was transferred to this Court and registered as Government Appeal No. D-73/2001, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment & order dated 21.09.2006.
(2.) The petitioner armed with the order of the High Court dated 21.09.2006 made a claim before the authorities in Uttarakhand stating that the basis of his termination from service was a criminal case in which he has now been acquitted and, therefore, he is liable to be taken back in service. The Commissioner, Food & Supply Department, Uttarakhand vide letter dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) referred the matter to his counterpart in Uttar Pradesh i.e. Commissioner, Food & Supply Department, U.P., Lucknow, on grounds that the petitioner is in fact not an employee of Uttarakhand and in view of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 and now the State of Uttarakhand being carved out only such employees are treated in the service of Uttarakhand who have been allocated to this State by the Central Government and since the petitioner has not been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, he would continue to be an employee of State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.11.1979 and 13.07.2007.
(3.) Mr. B.K. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue before this Court that the termination of the petitioner was not a simplicitor order of termination, but it was in consequence of certain charges levelled against him and that the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charge, therefore, this Court may lift the veil and appreciate the actual nature of the impugned order, which is punitive in nature and that the case of the petitioner may be considered on its merit in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted from all criminal charges. In other words, since the sole basis of termination of the petitioner stands demolished and does not exist any more, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the petitioner was in continuous service, he would have been regularized by now, a benefit which has been wrongly denied to him.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.