Vijay Bahupuna, J. - (1.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution the petitioner challenges the legality of the termination order dated 22nd November, 1991, passed by the respondent no. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as Deputy Manager (Audit) with the National Taxtile Corporation, Kanpur. THE services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that without any permission or authorisation from the competent authority of the Corporation he contested the elections to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from Swarnkhera Assembly Constituency. THE relevant part of charge-sheet reads thus : "Without any information and/or authorisation from the competent authority of the corporation and thereby he has contravened National Textile Corporation (U. P.) Ltd. Employees' Conduct, Discipline Rules, 1975 circul- ated vide office order No. V/88/23375-445 dated 2-5-1988" The petitioner has an excellent service record and there has been no complaint or 'adverse remark against him in the performance of duties. It was as a result of his contesting the elections to the U. P. Legislative Assembly, in which he lost, that the Corporation terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the same amounted to a gross misconduct under the provisions of the National Textile Corporation (U. P.) Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules., 1975. which was circulated amongst the employees vide letter No. V/88/23375-445 dated 2-5-1988. In his reply to the charge sheet the petitioner contended that was completely ignorent about the amendment made in the Conduct he Discipline and Appeal Rules and he was not aware of the fact that prior permission had to be sought for congesting the elections. He was advised that it is only if he is elected that he will have to resign from the post. He expressed regrets and prayed for a sympathetic consideration in the matter.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is contended that the petitioner committed gross misconduct by contesting the election to the Legislative Assembly without seeking prior permission or authorisation of the competent authority of the Corporation. It is further asserted that no application was received from the petitioner for seeking permission to contest the elections. Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the appeal against the order of termination has been dismissed.;