- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. The grievance of the petitioner is centred on the order dated 5-6-2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bikapur Faizabad thereby he was sanctioned leave without pay for the period 6-7-2002 to 5- 9-2002 and by means of the present petition, he has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 5-9- 2002 aforestated.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a short compass. THE petitioner who was serving as Lekhpal in Tahsil Bikapur District Faizabad was ordered to be transferred to Tahsil Milkipur vide order dated 25-6-2002 passed by the District Magistrate Faizabad and as a sequel to the said order, the order dated 2-7-2002 came to be issued from the office of Tahsildar Bikapur, Faizabad embodying a chain of transfer consisting of 10 employees including the petitioner. Upon receipt of the order, it is alleged that the petitioner released himself by entrusting the charge to one Prem Prakash on 5-7-2002 and observing in compliance all other formalities. It is further alleged that Tahsildar Bikapur played spoilsport and did not spare him as a consequence of which the petitioner sought audience with the Tahsildar followed by several requests at regular intervals including one written request made on 16-7-2002 but all his request wrecked on the obduracy of the Tahsildar and he was not relieved to report for duty at the transferred place. THE petitioner has filed requisite documents to lend support to the averments aforestated. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of initiating action against the Tahsildar who was the stumbling block in the way, the petitioner was served with the impugned order the text of which is that the petitioner absented himself unaccountably from official duties between 6-7-2002 to 5- 9-2002 at the same time sanctioning him leave without pay for the aforesaid period. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the impugned order has been passed in perfunctory and arbitrary manner actuated by mala fides with a view to penalising him for no fault of his and the Tahsildar who had declined to relieve him, has been let off the hook without any action. It is further submitted that deduction of salary for the period has been made without application of mind, in a highly arbitrary manner and actuated by malice at the instance of Tahsildar Bikapur. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had represented the matter to the District Magistrate against the said order and the representation dated 7-9-2002 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) is still hanging fire. From the perusal of the order, it is more than obvious that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, upon regard being had to the fact that the representation preferred by the petitioner is still sub-judice before the District Magistrate, Faizabad, I feel called to dispose of the petition attended with the direction that the District Magistrate Faizabad shall go into the tenability of the representation dated 7-9-2002 contained in Annexure 12 to the writ petition and decide the same by a speaking order after due opportunity to the petitioner to have his say. In passing the order, the District Magistrate, Faizabad shall assign reasons for his conclusions.
(3.) PETITION is finally disposed of in terms of the above directions. PETITION disposed of. .;