R.B. Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.
(2.) In this petition the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 20.7.1998 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) as well as to quash the order dated 16.11.1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Sachiv, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 19.8.98.
(3.) According to the petitioner his father was appointed as Assistant Teacher who died in harness on 16.1.1975 and petitioner by virtue of possession of Intermediate certificate was given an appointment in compassionate ground on 28.12.1991 U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 after about seven years the petitioner's appointment was cancelled and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in respect of procuring and relying on the certificate which was said to be false in respect of deployment of petitioner's father on 20.7.1998 and final report was submitted on 16.2.1999 indicating that the allegations in respect of Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC are not proved against the petitioner. However, final report was admitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi ex parte on non-prosecution. The petitioner filed earlier Writ Petition No. 25172 of 1998 against the termination which was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.8.1998 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). However, the petitioner filed appeal before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad which was dismissed on 16.11.1999 which is the impugned order. The petitioner during the course of argument had filed an amendment application indicating that the initial appointment of the petitioner was made under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 and in view of the decision of this High Court was to be made on Dying-in-Harness in view of the Judgment in (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2170, Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and Ors., dated April 11, 2002. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner was a permanent employee and the order dated 20.7.1998 has been passed relying on that the petitioner's father was not working in the said institution. The order is not simplicitor, such order should not have been passed without affording him opportunity of hearing or after making inquiry inconsonance to the law and more so when the petitioner's father working was disputed for that FIR was lodged which ended in finalization, therefore, the impugned order of termination and the subsequent appellate order is not legally sustainable.;