D.P.S.Chauhan - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-11- 1988 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited, Biijnor, whereby his services have been terminated This order is sought to be quashed in the present petition. Since counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and there is no other party to be served With the consent of the counsel for the parties and under the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of court, I consider it proper to dispose of this petition finally as the controversy involved in the present case is already settled in Writ Petition No. 19665 of 1989.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Seasonal Clerk in the Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor, on 5-11-1988 by the District Cane Officer/District Assistant Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Bijnor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that along with the petitioner, another person, namely Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, was appointed in the same situation in which the petitioner was appointed, but he has been retained in service and the services of the petitioner have been terminated in an arbitrary manner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents Sri Shashi Nandan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that- (i) the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner prior to termination of his services ; (ii) the termination was bad in view of Regulation 34 of the U. P. Cane Cooperative Services Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') where under his services could be terminated either by the recruiting authority or by the appointing authority and, in the present case, the services of the petitioner have not been terminated either by the recruiting authority or by the appointing authority, and as such the order terminating the services of the petitioner is null and void ; and (iii) under regulation 34 of the Regulations, the services of the erstwhile employee are terminable either by one week's notice or with a week's salary in lieu thereof but, in the case of the petitioner, his services have been terminated in violation of Regulation 34, and he has neither been given any notice nor paid any salary in lieu thereof by the appointing authority.
(3.) THE case of the respondents is that another person, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey's appointment was not on similar post as that of the petitioner and that has no relevance or bearing so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy regarding his argument that his case is similar to that of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey and this submission accordingly has no substance and is rejected.;