Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) List has been revised. None appeared for the Petitioner though the name of Sri R.N. Nigam has been shown in the cause list as counsel for the Petitioner. On behalf of Respondent No. 2, Sri Rakesh Bahadur, Advocate, has put in appearance and has also filed counter affidavit. The cause list shows the name of Sri A.S. Divekar, Advocate also but it appears that he is not the counsel for any of the Respondents and Sri Rakesh Bahadur states that Respondent No. 1 is represented by learned Standing Counsel and Respondents 2, 3 and 4 by himself, hence, it is evident that the name of Sri A.S. Divekar has wrongly been shown as counsel for Respondents in the cause list since he is not representing any of the Respondents. In the circumstances, I proceed.
(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of termination dated 2.5.2009 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition). However, it appears that for sometime the Petitioner was engaged as Assistant Lineman, but his services were dispensed with and he was not allowed to work after 28th February, 1991. He approached this Court by means of Writ petition No. 39633 of 1993 claiming that he has already been regularised and, therefore, cannot be terminated and obtained an interim order pursuant whereto he continued to work and obtained salary. The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing before this Court and vide its judgment dated 8.8.2006, this Court recorded a finding that the Petitioner is guilty of forgery and has filed fictitious and forged orders before the Court, hence, has played fraud. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude, as has been contended by the Respondents, that the order dated 25th July, 1991 is a forged and fictitious order. The fact that the order dated 17th August, 1996 is also a forged and a fictitious order is fortified by the letters dated 24th October, 2003 and 2nd June, 2006 sent by the Petitioner to the Executive Officer as it mentions that certain employees of the Nagar Palika were demanding money from him for making him permanent. It needs to be mentioned that the order dated 17th August, 1996 was filed by the Petitioner along with the supplementary counter affidavit sworn on 1st August, 2006 and if the order dated 17th August, 1996 had actually been issued by the Executive Officer, the Petitioner would not have submitted the two representations referred to above, for confirming him. It is, therefore, clearly a case where the Petitioner has played fraud upon this Court by filing forged and fictitious documents.
(3.) It appears that a submission was also advanced before this Court that since the Petitioner had continued to work on the basis of interim order since 1993 to 2006, therefore, he should be allowed to continue. This submission was also rejected by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/ -. The relevant operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under: The Petitioner has continued to work in the Nagar Palika and has also been paid salary on the basis of the interim order dated 27th October, 1993. This interim order was passed on the basis of the order dated 25th July, 1991 which order has been found to be forged and fictitious. It is, therefore, a fit case where the petition should not only be dismissed but heavy cost should be imposed on the Petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Baburao Mahadik and Ors. v/s. Subhash Krishna Kanitkar and Ors., AIR 2005 SCW 1579, in which it was observed: 26. It is, therefore, apparent that the Appellants have made incorrect statements and annexed a wrong document before this Court. 54. ...Having regard to the facts that the Appellants have sought to mislead this Court, we think it appropriate to impose costs upon them. The Appellants are hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with National Legal Services Authority within four weeks from date and deposit the receipt thereof in the Registry of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/ - which shall be deposited by the Petitioner before the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika within a period of one month from today failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Jalaun. The cost so collected shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad.;