- (1.) VAKALATNAMA filed by Shri Vivek Tripathi, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the records. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.1989 passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 124/F/III/85, allowing the claim petition while setting aside the termination order published in newspaper 'Varandoot' on 02.09.1982 with a direction to the petitioners to consider leave applications of respondent No. 1 if available in their office and in case the applications were not available with the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 was to submit such applications for leave for passing orders within three months from the date of receipt of applications. It appears that respondent No. 1 was initially appointed in the office of Soil Conservation Officer, Gandak Command, Gorakhpur. His work and conduct were found to be satisfactory and he did not earn any adverse entry as nothing as such was communicated to him. It also appears that he was a chronic patient of peptic Ulcer and was thus admitted for treatment at Safder Jung Hospital, New Delhi, and later also, remained under treatment in the mental hospital, Shahdara, New Delhi and District Hospital, Buland Shahr. During the period of absence of respondent No. 1 his family members submitted as many as 25 applications for leave and were also given some assurance that respondent No. 1 would be taken in service as soon as he fully recovered from the ailments. On 25.03.1985, respondent No. 1 having fully recovered was declared fit for joining the service. Thus, he approached the Gandak Command Office, Gorakhpur, but he was not allowed to join. On the other hand, he was informed that his services stood terminated although he was not served with a copy of the termination order. He was also not subjected to any departmental proceeding before the order of termination was passed. Under these circumstances, respondent No. 1 challenged the termination order before Tribunal while contending that publication of termination order in a newspaper known as 'Varandoot' with a very limited circulation was not enough and the news item had never come to his notice earlier and thus the entire exercise leading to passing of order terminating the services of respondent No. 1 was completed behind his back and as such stood vitiated.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioners submitted that a news item was published in the newspaper on 09.02.1982. The news was given to inform that respondent No. 1 had left his office after moving a leave application on 07.02.1982 and thereafter he remained absent from duty and did not submit any further application for leave. In the news item it was clarified that if respondent No. 1 failed to join his duty within a week, his services would be liable for termination.;