K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner was employed as Marketing Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. While he was posted at the wheat purchase centre at Nadri in district Etah, his services were terminated by an order of the Regional Food Controller, Agra Region, dated 24-5-1975, by giving him one month's salary in lieu of period of notice. The petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of termination.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even though the impugned order purports to be an order of termination, but in substance it is an order of punishment. The petitioner has asserted that while he was posted at a wheat purchase centre Nadri, Deputy Regional Marketing Officer made inspection of the centre on 17-5-1975. On inspection he found excess quantity of wheat in the bags which had been purchased from the cultivators. He was satisfied that the staff which was posted at the purchase centre had defrauded the cultivators. The petitioner was asked to record a note in his own hand writing and to sign the same by way of admission that one Kg. and 200 grammes of wheat was found in excess in each bag when it was re-weighed in the presence of the Deputy Regional Marketing Officer. Within a week of the inspection petitioner's services were terminated. Learned standing counsel has produced the original file containing the relevant records. A perusal of the same shows that the Deputy Regional Marketing Officer submitted a report to the Regional Food Controller, Aara, on 21-5-1975, stating that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The Regional Food Controller accepted the report and passed the impugned order terminating the petitioner's services. These facts clearly show that the order of termination was found 'd on the allegation of misconduct against the petitioner. Even though the order was passed on the foundation of misconduct against the petitioner, no departmental enquiry was held and no opportunity was afforded to him as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, therefore, the impugned order is rendered void.
(3.) In the result the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated ed. The petitioner continues in service. He is entitled Petition allowed.;