ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel appearing for the respondent NO.1 and Sri K. M. Misra appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The writ petition is being finally disposed of with the consent of both the parties.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the termination order dated 10.11.1993 Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are:_____ The petitioner was selected for appointment as Cooperative Kurk Amin by the Collector, Saharanpur vide his order dated 1.6.1985 The District Assistant Registrar issued an order dated 10.6 1985 directing the petitioner to complete certain formalities within one week, the appointment order dated 25.6.1985 was Issued by the District Assistant Registrar in pursuance of the selection of the petitioner on commission basis as Kurk Amin. The appointment order stated that the petitioner's services are temporary. By an order dated 10.11.1993 issued by the Collector, Saharanpur petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted representation to the Collector protesting against his termination vide his representation dated 18.12.1993. It was stated by the petitioner in the representation that the termination has been affected without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The termination order dated 10.11.1993 terminating the services of the petitioner has been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the counter affidavit it has been stated in paragraph 4 that the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement that is why his services were dispensed with by the impugned order. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Circle Officer, Collection was made Enquiry Officer and in the enquiry it was found that the petitioner is guilty of embezzlement of the amount to the tune of Rs.9000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation of embezzlement it was decided to terminate the petitioner's services. It is relevant to note the allegation made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit for ascertaining the real cause of termination of petitioner's services. Following is the averment made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit: "8. ................... Ultimately by the order dated 30.10.1992 the C.O./Collection was made enquiry officer who after holding the enquiry found that the petitioner is guilty of embezzlement of the amount to the tune of Rs.9,000/- and consequently there upon the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.7800/-on 13.1.1993, a sum of Rs.1200/- on 16. 1. 1993 and a sum of Rs.280/- on 13.2.1993. Thus total Rs.8,980/- was deposited in the Bank Thus, it is clear that the petitioner who was appointed on commission basis has embezzled the aforesaid amount and the same came into light after a gap of five years and when the enquiry was conducted the petitioner deposited the same. Thereafter it· was decided by the respondent no. 1 not to retain the petitioner in service and consequently the impugned order dated 10.11.1993 was passed by which the petitioner's services were dispensed with." ;