- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed against orders passed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 dated 6-9-2003, 15-4-2002 and 30-10-2001 which have culminated into termination of the petitioner who was working as a Lekhpal with the respondent State. The petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal in the year 1987 and was continued to work in the department concerned. The petitioner received a show-cause notice on 3-4-2000 stating therein that on account of certain charges against him, a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5-4-2000. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 5-5-2000 and, thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was also issued against him on 25-5- 2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Enquiry Officer on 14-6-2000 and an order was passed on 1-7-2000 terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Bijnore on 14-7-2000. The District Magistrate allowed the appeal of the petitioner by setting aside the order-dated 1- 7-2000 and made observation that the respondent No. 3 Up Ziladhikari, Nazimabad, District Bijnore may pass a fresh order by giving a fresh show-cause notice and also may pass an order that the petitioner would be treated to be on suspension during that period.
(3.) THE petitioner, thereafter, received a fresh show-cause notice on 10-1-2001 to which the petitioner gave a reply on 19-1-2001. THE respondents, thereafter, passed an order on 30-10-2001 again terminating the services of the petitioner. This is the first order, which is impugned in the present writ petition. THE petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal against this order on 12- 11-2001. THE appeal was dismissed by the order-dated 15-4-2002, which is also impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision against the impugned order dated 15-4-2002 and the respondent No. 1- Commissioner rejected the revision of the petitioner on 15-1-2003. The ultimate order is the order-dated 15-1-2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that all the impugned orders are fully perverse and arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as his right to livelihood is affected by terminating his services without giving him a proper enquiry.;