SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims to be involved in the profession of news reporting and has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: - i) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto thereby ousting the opposite party No.7 Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi from the office of District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli which he has usurped the public office District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli holding the post of Assistant Engineer therein for which he is quite disqualified and under no authority of law he is entitled to hold the post of Assistant Engineer in the aforesaid public office of District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli. ii) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the alleged order dated 21.04.2005 passed by opposite party No.2 as contained in Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. iii) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus thereby restraining the opposite party No.7 from working and discharging his duties on the post of Assistant Engineer, District Rural Development Agency, Raebareli. iv) issue any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) allow the writ petition with costs.
(2.) SRI C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the Respondent No.7, Shailendra Kumar Tripathi was dismissed from service after due inquiry on 01.09.1992 and when his resignation was accepted on 03.08.1992 then the Respondent No.1 (Principal Secretary) could not have set aside both the said orders to re -instate the Respondent No.7 in service vide his order dated 21.04.2005 which is impugned in this writ petition. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition can be summarised as follows: - 1. The Respondent No.7 was engaged as a daily wager since 11.06.1985 to work as an Assistant Engineer in the District Rural Development Agency, Bahraich. 2. The DRDA is a supervisory autonomous body doing Rural Development and the Chairman is the District Magistrate who is the appointing authority of its employees. 3. The appointing authority vide its order dated 27.01.1986 appointed the Respondent No.7 as Assistant Engineer on ad -hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.850 -1720 till a regular appointment is made by the State Government or he can be terminated earlier. 4. The Respondent No.7 was suspended on 29.10.1991 and in the inquiry he was found guilty of the charges hence he was dismissed by the order dated 01.09.1992. 5. The dismissal order dated 01.09.1992 also directed recovery of Rs.16,02,391/ - from the Respondent No.7. 6. After the order of suspension (29.10.1991) and prior to the order of dismissal (01.09.1992) the Respondent No.7 submitted a resignation letter dated 01.08.1992 which was accepted by the District Magistrate on 03.08.1992 with a rider that the Disciplinary proceedings already pending against him shall continue and in case any loss to the Government is proved against him he shall be liable for it. 7. The order dated 03.08.1992 was challenged by the Respondent No.7 in Writ Petition No.5822(SB) of 1992 (Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others). 8. The Respondent No.7 also challenged the order of dismissal dated 01.09.1992 in Writ Petition No.6911(SB) of 1992 (Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others). 9. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and an interim order dated 12.05.1993 was passed wherein the order dated 03.08.1992 (acceptance of resignation) and order dated 01.09.1992 (Dismissal were stayed with a direction that he will be treated in service and be entitled to salary and emoluments. 10. The DRDA filed SLP (Civil) No.21444 of 1993 wherein by the order dated 07.04.1994 the Supreme Court set aside the interim order dated 12.05.1993 and the High Court was required to decide the writ petition within four months. 11. After nearly 10 years thereafter the Respondent No.7 filed an application for withdrawal of the writ petition which was allowed on 10.12.2004 and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 12. Upon withdrawal of the writ petition the Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2005 whereby the order dated 03.08.1992 (acceptance of resignation) and order dated 01.09.1992 (Dismissal) have been set aside on the ground that they were passed illegally. 13.The Respondent No.7 was consequently re -instated and directed to join in the office of the Commissioner, Department of Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow and be paid salary.
(3.) IN this writ petition an interim order dated 30.05.2014 has been passed whereby the operation of the impugned order dated 21.04.2005 has been stayed for the reason that the State Government had passed the impugned order in bad faith.;