- (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.2.2005, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on a Group 'D' post on 4.11.1993, by the opposite party No. 3, on ad hoc basis against the consolidated salary of Rs. 750/- per month. However, the service of the petitioner was discontinued on 16.4.1994 without any reason. Thereafter by another order dated 28.4.1994, the petitioner was again appointed on the same post, but for a definite period of three months. The opposite parties did not allow the petitioner to join the service in pursuance of the appointment order dated 28.4.1994. Having no other alternative the petitioner approached the Directorate of Public Grievances, by means of an application dated 30.11.1995 and on the recommendation of the Committee the petitioner was given appointment on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-3320. The petitioner after completing necessary formalities joined the post subsequently. By the order dated 28.4.1999, the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 14.7.1998. The petitioner has been an office bearer of Cooperative Bank Employees Union Uttar Pradesh, which was a registered association. The petitioner raised voice against the opposite party No. 4 who was illegally appointed on the non-existent post of Chief Manager in the year 1995. This annoyed the opposite party No. 4 and resulted into the termination of the petitioner. In the year 2002, the then President of the City Unit of Cooperative Bank Employees Union, Sri Roop Narain Pandey, made another complaint to opposite party No. 5 with regard to certain irregularities prevailing in the bank due to corruption at the level of the Officers. The opposite party No. 7 was directed to conduct an enquiry into the charges levelled in the complaint, upon which, the opposite party No. 7 conducted a detailed enquiry and issued a notice to opposite party No. 3. The petitioner along with Roop Narain Pandey were placed under suspension in the month of June, 2004 but since there was no concrete charges against them, the Bank could not proceed with any enquiry. When the opposite party No. 4 could not succeed in setting up an enquiry against the petitioner, he in connivance with a lady Senior Manager of the Bank got another complaint lodged against the petitioner on 11.6.2004, in which it was alleged that the petitioner did not cooperate for carrying cash from Rajdhani Nagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. on its regular transit to the other Nationalized Bank for deposit in terms of the norms of Reserve Bank of India. It was stated in the complaint that Smt. Meeta Bose, Senior Manager was deputed on 11.6.2004 to carry cash from L.D.A. Colony Branch of the Bank to the Nationalized Bank for it being deposited. The petitioner was unnecessarily given a command to accompany them. When the petitioner refused to accompany them, on the pretext that in the absence of any written orders from the Branch Manager, the Authorized Officer, he is not supposed to take up such work, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.7.2004. Meanwhile the petitioner fell ill and the suspension order was not communicated to him, rather the same was placed on the notice board. Thereafter a notice was published in the Daily Newspaper.
(2.) After the submission of enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which could not be served upon him and ultimately the same was published in the Newspaper and thereafter by the impugned order the services of the petitioner were terminated.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties.;