D.S.Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A. K Tripathi, learned cpunsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwel, learned Senir Advocate representing the coatesting respondent No. 2 at length and in detail.
(2.) By means' of this petition under Article 226, of the Constitution of India, the award dated 10th July, 1984, rendered by the respondent No.1 in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 1983, registered upon a reference by the State Government, is- under, challenge The impugned award holds the termination of the services of the respondent No, 2 to be illegal and impropes and directs his reinstatement with effect from lst June, 1982 on which date his services were terminated.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 was working as a Sales-man of the petitioner since l7th September, l978 and his services were dispensed with, with effect from 1st June, 1582, on the basis of the charge of alleged corruption and financial irregularities. It is not disputed that before termination of his services the respondent No. 2 was neither served with any chargesheet nor was he paid any retrenchment compensation. It is also not in dispute that no inquiry preceded the termination. In this backdrop the respondent No. I held the termination of the services of the respondent No. 2 to be illegal and improper and directed for his reinstatement.;