H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 2nd December, 1970, passed by the District Magistrate Nainital, terminating petitioner's services as Overseer in the Town Office at Rudrapur, Nainital.
(2.) The petitioner Vishnu Kumar Bharadwaj was appointed as Overseer in Rudrapur Town under the order's of the Prescribed Authority cum District Magistrate, Nainital, dated 10:h October, 1966. The appointment letter indicated that his setvices were temporary and were liable to be terminated without notice. Case of the petitioner is that in his capacity as Overseer, he had to inspect constructions set up in the township and to make a report to the Prescribed Authority. In that connection, he mode a report to the Prescribed Authority with regard to certain unauthorised construction made by Dr. D. C. Rastogi who happened to be the family physician of Prescribed Authority, Sri R. C Jain. Dr. Rastogi came to him in connection with the aforesaid report and requested him to regularise the objection raised by him. When the petitioner expressed his inability to oblige Dr, Rastogi, he threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of a report made by the petitioner, Dr. Rastogi was prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 of U. P. Regulation of Building Operations Act 1958. Dr. Rastogi, being a family physician of Sri R. C. Jain was thick and thin with him. Sri Jain therefore started interfering in the criminal case, initiated by the petitioner, against Dr. Rastogi He also told the petitioner that his services would be terminated as he had made an attempt to harm his friend and family physician. On 5th June, 1970, the petitioner also made a report to the p dice about the threat that had been extended by Dr. Rastogi. He also made similar reports to the police against 3 Jan Sangh Leaders, namely, Ved Prakash, Chaman Lal Arhatiya, and Subhas Chand on 6th July, 1969. Consequently, Dr Rastogi and aforesaid three persons staffed a c onsade against the petitioner. On 15th June, 1970. Dr. Rastogi addressed a false complaint to Sri Mangla Prasad, the acting Officer-in-charge and Prescribed Authority, alleging that the petitioner had accepted bribe from several persons and had also committed other irregularities Thereupon, Sri Jain the Prescribed Authority sent the complaint made by Dr. Rastogi to the petitioner calling upon him to report and comment upon facts mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted a detailed report refuting the allegations made in Dr. Rastogi's complaint and thereafter went on leave from 22nd September, 1970 to 4th October, 1970. On return from leave he came to know chat Sri Jain, the Prescribed Authority, had conducted an enquiry and had recorded certain statements behind his back. Accordingly, he approached Sri Jain and requested that he should be given full opportunity to defend himself. He also pointed out to Sri Jain that the enquiry made by him behind petitioner's back, was illegal and without jurisdiction. Sri Jain then told the petitioner that all the irregularities would be settled by serving upon him a simple notice of termination of service which would not be justiciable in a court of law. It appears that subsequently on the basis of the report made by Sri Jain, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 2nd December, 1970, terminating petitioner's service by giving him one month's pay in lieu of notice.
(3.) The grounds taken in writ petition disclose that the petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order on three grounds:- (1) Order terminating petitioner's services was illegal as it was passed by the District Magistrate and not by the Prescribed Authority who alone was competent to determine petitioner's employment. (2) The order terminating petitioner's employment is vitiated because of mala tides of the Prescribed Authority, and (3) Circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the order determining petitioner's employment has been made by way of punishment. It is vitiated for non-compliance of Article 311 of (he Constitution However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press the first ground mentioned above.;