ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Bhanot, learned Standing Counsel appearirig for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.8.1975 and 21.1.1992 passed by the Superintending Engineer, 34th Finance, Public Works Department, Varanasi. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to count the earlier services of the petitioner with effect from 7.11.1974 till 28.4.1991 and fix his salary in accordance with law and then pay arrears of salary and also his salary month by month in accordance with law. Facts giving rise to the writ petition briefly stated are: By an order dated 9.10.1973 issued by the Superintending Engineer petitioner was given temporary appointment as Store Keeper on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the order. The terms and conditions of the appointment as mentioned in the appointment order provided that the services of the petitioner can be terminated by the Appointing Authority by giving notice the period of such notice shall be one month. Appointing Authority was also empowered to give shorter notice for termination. The condition further stipulated that it is for the Appointing Authority to terminate without giving any notice.
(3.) AGAINST the petitioner a Criminal Case No. 491 of 1974 under Section 409 IPC was registered. Another case under Section 380 IPC was also registered regarding theft of records. The Works Superintendent in letter dated 26.9.1974 recommended suspension of the petitioner making allegations against the petitioner including the allegations of theft of records. The suspension order was issued on 28th September, 1974. Petitioner did not attend his duties with effect from 7.11.1974. The petitioner was arrested in criminal case but later on released. By an order dated 8.1.1975, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 7.11.1974 by the Superintending Engineer. After termination of his services, in a criminal case under Section 409 IPC final report was submitted on 14.8.1980, which fact was communicated by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 1.9.1980 to the Superintending Engineer. In other criminal case which was going on against the petitioner, the petitioner was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 25.11.1980. Petitioner vide his letter dated 28.11.1980, wrote to the Superintending Engineer to reinstate the petitioner on account of his acquittal in criminal case. The Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 19.3.1981 wrote to the Chief Engineer informing the fact of acquittal of the petitioner in criminal cases and stated that no further proceeding is required regarding the case decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was stated in the letter that the petitioner be reinstated so that case of Contempt of Court may not arise. Petitioner submitted a representation on 13.2.1991 addressed to the Minister, Public Works Department praying that his joining report be accepted and he may be reinstated. It was also stated in the letter that the Department be directed for finding out liability of the Government Loss amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/ -. It was also stated in the letter that from 1986 to 1990, the petitioner due to his illness and family circumstances could not place his case before any Higher Authority. On the representation dated 13.2.1991, the Superintending Engineer sent his comments to the Chief Engineer, a copy of the said report has been filed as Annexure -9 to the writ petition. The aforesaid report contains detailed facts with regard to petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the criminal cases lodged under Sections 380 and 409 IPC was also noted. It was also noted in the letter that the petitioner has submitted a written application on 12.4.1991 in Paragraph 2 of which letter consent was given by the petitioner that his appointment be accepted from present date with the condition that the same will be acceptable to the petitioner subject to approval of the Higher Authorities. It was also stated with regard to earlier services of the petitioner that the petitioner will accept the decision of the Chief Engineer/Engineer -in -Chief and the Government. The Engineer -in -Chief vide letter dated 25.4.1991 wrote to the Superintending Engineer to re -appoint the petitioner on the post of Store Keeper. The Chief Engineer has noted in the order that the petitioner has been acquitted in the case pertaining to theft of records and with regard to shortage of materials in store final report has been submitted by the Police. Taking the above facts into consideration the petitioner was given appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 950 -1500/ - as temporary Store Keeper vide order dated 26th April, 1991. The petitioner in pursuance of the appointment order dated 26.4.1991, joined on 29th April, 1991. Petitioner wrote a letter dated 2.7.1991 to the Superintending Engineer in which he stated that there is no mention in the order dated 26.4.1991 regarding previous services of the petitioner. The petitioner prayed that the earlier services of the petitioner be added in the present service. Vide letter dated 21.1.1991 Superintending Engineer wrote to the Work Superintendent that the petitioner be informed that in the letter of the Engineer -in -chief there is mention of reappointment and no mention has been made for giving benefit of earlier services of the petitioner. At this stage petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for quashing the earlier termination order dated 8.1.1975 and letter dated 21.1.1992 rejecting his representation to add his earlier services. Counsel for the petitioner challenging the termination order dated 8.1.1975 has made following submissions: - (1) That the termination order dated 8.1.1975 was punitive in nature. Services of the petitioner were terminated without holding any Regular Enquiry hence the termination is vitiated. (2) Termination of petitioner's services vide letter dated 8.1.1975 was also not in accordance with the terms of appointment letter as well as in accordance with the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. (3) Petitioner was entitled to be reinstated after cancelling the illegal termination order and respondents committed error in re -appointing the petitioner on the same post on temporary basis. Petitioner is entitled to add his earlier services from 7.11.1974 to 28.4.1991. ;