- (1.) HEARD Mr.Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.10.2006, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad in exercise of power provided under Rule 8(2)(b) of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991.
(3.) BY means of order impugned the petitioner has been terminated from service. The undisputed facts of the case are that one Constable -Driver Ram Chandra Mishra died on 1st of August, 1987 in an accident, while in service. The petitioner, being son of the deceased, was given appointment on 1st of December, 1987 under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. However, subsequently Smt. Mithliesh Kumari Mishra, widow of the deceased also received the benefit of compassionate appointment and she was appointed as such as Orderly Peon in Group 'D' under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Whereas in the affidavit submitted before the High Court the petitioner disclosed that except him nobody else of the deceased's family has been given appointment. The petitioner's defence is that after getting appointment at Lucknow the petitioner stayed at Lucnkow while his mother was residing at Basti and she has been given appointment in ordinary course and not under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It is also stated that since both of them had been living separately, there was no communication between two with respect to the subsequent events. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 also lodged a First Information Report against him, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No.2563 of 2006 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Faizabad. The petitioner challenged the registration of FIR through the writ petition before this court and this court stayed the operation of the said F.I.R. However, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner.;