- (1.) SHRI Tej Pal, learned Counsel through whom this appeal was filed, made his submission at length yesterday. However, he made request for preparing the case further and thereafter this matter was directed to be taken up today for further hearing. Today when the case was taken up SHRI Tej Pal, learned Counsel did not appear. However, the appellant appeared in person and informed that he has submitted application in the Registry with the request to permit him to argue this case in person. On his request the application was summoned from the office and after considering the prayer, the petitioner- appellant was permitted to argue the matter in person.
(2.) THIS special appeal arises out of the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 12-11-2003 dismissing the petitioner's writ petition filed against the order of termination. The only ground raised before us by the petitioner-appellant is that no order of termination was served upon him though it is claimed by the respondents that his services were terminated on 13-2- 2002. It is contended that he has actually served the department even thereafter and at no point of time the order of termination was ever served upon him, therefore, it cannot be said that his service was ever terminated and the respondents are illegally not permitting him to continue in service and also not paying him salary. Heard the petitioner-appellant, who appeared in person, and perused the record including the judgment under appeal, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
(3.) IT appears that a notice was published in the daily newspaper 'amar Ujala' dated 23-2-2002 regarding termination of service of the petitioner. Copy of the aforesaid notice is annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal and the contents thereof are quoted as under: The petitioner came to know of the aforesaid notice certainly on 23-2-2002, which is also admitted by him in his legal notice dated 27-8-2002 where in para 3 of the notice the fact about the aforesaid notice has been stated. The appellant was also aware that the District Manager has passed the order dated 14- 2-2002 terminating his services and claimed to have perused the aforesaid order on 21-8-2002, as stated in para 6 of the legal notice dated 27-8-2002. He challenged the validity of the aforesaid termination order vide his legal notice dated 27-8-2002 and there is no mention any where in the entire notice that the petitioner did not possess the copy of the aforesaid order at least on the date when the legal notice dated 27-8-2002 was issued. However, in para 132 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application and this appeal the applicant has averred that he came to know, for the first time, about the letter dated 13-2-2002 and order dated 14-2-2002 from the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition. Apparently, the affidavit is false since the legal notice dated 27-8-2002 itself mentions that the petitioner perused and came to know about the aforesaid document on 21-8-2002 when he perused file No. 156 (S/b) proceeding pending in the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Besides, it appears that the contention of the petitioner is that unless the order of termination as such is served upon him the same cannot be said to be operative and having force in law.;