KISHORI LAL RAJORIA Vs. U P PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL
LAWS(ALL)-1992-9-46
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 14,1992

KISHORI LAL RAJORIA Appellant
VERSUS
U. P. PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL (II), LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioner's services have been terminated on 17-6-1978. He seems to have filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 31-1-1982. THE petitioner challenges the said order of the Tribunal as also the termination order of his service in this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner's case before: the Tribunal as also in this Court is that he was appointed in the department of Health as Medical Officer in 1974 on the pay scale of Rs. 550-!2((0 by the respondent No. 1. He was posted at Chamoli, from where he was transferred to Jhansi district in January, 1977. On 17-6 1978 he is said to have received a letter, which is purported to have been issued under notification dated 11-6 1975 saying that the petitioner's services were no longer required. THE petitioner was employed on temporary basis and, therefore, was governed by the rules, governing the temporary services, of 1973 as also the termination of Service Rules framed with regard to temporary employees of 1975. The petitioner has further stated that he found certain disrepancies in the records of the hospital as his predecessor in office had not deposited the patients' registration fees during the period from July, 1976 to October, 1977. Some other articles were also found short by him in the hospital. He is said to have made complaint to the respondents No. 3 and 4 in this regard. On the complaint of the petitioner the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner to remain present in the hospital as he would make an enquiry in the complaint. The petitioner's predecessor-in-office was also required to be present in the office. The respondent No. 4 was trying to save the person against whom the petitioner has made the complaint. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have received information on 30-1-1978 about the illness of his son at Gwalior. However, he did not leave the station on 30-1-1978 and 31-1-1978. On 31-1-1978 the petitioner is said to have informed the respondent No. 4 that he was proceeding on casual leave for two days to see his son. He was not informed about his transfer before his departure for Gwalior. The petitioner is said to have extended his leave upto 9-2-1978 to be able to look after his ailing son at Gwalior. He is said to have returned on 10-2-1978. By a letter dated 2-2-1978, which is said to have been served on the petitioner on 10-2-1978 through another doctor of the Health Centre, the petitioner was informed that his casual application was rejected as he was under orders of transfer vide order dated 2-1-1978 passed by the respondent No. 3. It was falsely reported to the authorities that the petitioner was absenting from duty from 1-2-1978. The petitioner alleges that his transfer order from the Health Centre, Bangra, Jhansi to Allahabad was prepared in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 27-1-1978 and was served on the petitioner vide registered letter of 25-2-1978. Prior to this date the petitioner had no knowledge about his transfer though he was available and discharging his duties except for a brief period from 1-2-1973 to 9-2-1978. The petitioner on receipt of the transfer order is said to have handed oyer the charge on The petitioner is said to have approached the respondent No. 4 by a letter of 10-2-1978 to resolve the dispute regarding the shortage of money and other articles noticed by him after he had taken charge from his predecessor in office He could not be relieved unless enquiry in the matter was conducted. On 17-2-1978 the respondent No. 4 is said to have visited the Health Centre, Bangra and taken some case, certain registers and keys of the stores of the hospital He refused to issue any receipt in lieu of those articles On 18-2-1978 the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner also lodged a complaint with the police about the seizure of cash and registers by the respondent No- 4, The respondeat No. 4 is said to have called for an explanation from the petitioner as to why he made a false allegation against him. A letter was sent to the petitioner's predecessor in office by the respondent No. 4 to show cause and to hand over the articles back, which were found short. The petitioner is said to have filed reply to this letter on 13-3-1978. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have written letters for issuance of 'No dues certificate' to enable him to join at Allahabad. However, he was not issued any such letter nor was he paid salary from 1-1-1978, though he made several requests in this behalf.
(3.) THE petitioner submits that in this background the respondents No. 3 and 4 manipulated the affairs in such manner that they got the petitioner's services terminated on 17-6-1978. This order was served on the petitioner on 17-7-1978 along with the letter of the respondent No. 3. THE petitioner filed a claim petition before the respondent No. 1. A copy of the claim petition is annexed to this petition. THE said claim petition was dismissed on 13-1-1982 and the petitioner was served with a copy of the order on 9-2-1982. The petitioner's case is that the order terminating the petitioner's services was by way of punishment and the out come of the complaint lodged by the petitioner against his superior authorities The petitioner states that he was compelled by the respondents No. 3 end 4 to state that he was relieved from Primary Health Centre Benga w.e. f. 2-2-1978 while in fact he received the transfer order on 25-2-1978. The respondents No. 3 and 4 are said to have made some adverse entry relating to the year 1974-75 against the petitioner. which was communicated to the petitioner in April, 1978. Even after this the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The petitioner was never served with any warning during bis posting either at Chamoli or at Jhansi. False and baseless allegations were fabricated in the records and the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to explain or represent: his case.;


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