AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.P. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE services of the petitioner have been terminated on the solitary ground that the affidavit which was filed on 16th of November, 2006 did not disclose the correct facts pertaining to the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner being case No. 119 of 2001 Under Section 323/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Giri contends that as a matter of fact the petitioner had no actual or constructive knowledge of the pendency of the said criminal case which has been made the basis of the passing of the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. He further submits that the said issue which was raised in appeal as also before the Revisional authority but the aforesaid aspect has been completely overlooked, therefore, the conclusions arrived at are vitiated. He relies on the decision of Mohd. Tahir Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009(9) ADJ Page 42.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the order sheet which has been filed by the petitioner himself in relation to the criminal case indicates that the processes had been issued on several occasions. As a matter of fact coercive steps have already been taken as it is admitted by the petitioner himself. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner was involved in a family squabble about which he had full knowledge as also that of the pendency of the said criminal case, and which he ought to have disclosed.;