M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The order of respondent No. 3 dated 18-9-1984 as also the order of respondent No. 1 dated 9-1-1990 is challenged by the petitioner through the medium of this writ petition.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Copyist in Varg K in Copying Section, Revenue Record Room, Collect-orate, Jaunpur in the year 1983 against a clear vacancy. For appointing the petitioner, it is stated that there was a merit list prepared on 14-6-1982. The petitioner submits that according to the Establishment Rules, he was confirmed after having remained on probation for a period of three months. On 18-9-1984 respondent No. 3, without assigning any reason informed the petitioner that his services were no more required and the same were terminated. The other persons who were selected along with the petitioner on the basis of merit list dated 14-6-1982, have been retained. The petitioner's services alone have been terminated and the post of the petitioner was not abolished The petitioner, thereafter, seems to have filed a claim petition before respondent No. 1 which also was dismissed on 9-1-1990. The petitioner challenges both the orders on number of grounds.
(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that the order passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 1 are illegal, erroneous and against the constitutional provisions. The foundation of petitioner's termination of services is said to be alleged misconduct which is mentioned in the First Information Report. The petitioner has already been exonerated of the charges. Therefore, no misconduct can be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner's termination order is said to be based on some allegations contained in the F. I. R. Therefore, it was necessary to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The impugned order of termination is said to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India.;