- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents.
(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned termination order dated 11.4.2016 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gorakhpur-respondent no.3. He has further prayed for direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service on the post of Safai Karmi and to pay him regular salary with all consequential benefits.
(3.) As per record, this much is reflected that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Safai Karmi on 26.2.2011. After completing two years of service on the post in question, a complaint was made by one Mahajan Prasad Gupta to the District Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner had appeared in High School Examination-1998-99 with the name of Chandra Shekhar son of Ram Nagina and the date of birth was mentioned as 6.5.1984 in which he was declared unsuccessful and again he appeared in the High School Examination-2005 and changed his name as Anand Kumar son of Ram Nagina and the date of birth was mentioned as 5.7.1988. On the aforesaid complaint, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur vide order dated 17.4.2013 directed to the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur to make enquiry into the matter. After the enquiry, the petitioner's services were dispensed with on 30.5.2014. The petitioner had proceeded to approach this Court by means of Writ A No.36945 of 2014 (Anand Kumar vs. State of UP through Secretary and another) and this Court vide order dated 22.7.2014 had proceeded to allow the said writ petition and the termination order dated 30.5.2014 was quashed. The order dated 22.7.2014 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is being decided finally, without inviting a counter affidavit. By means of the impugned order, the petitioner, who after facing selection, was appointed on the post of Safai Karmi, by appointment letter dated 26th February 2011, is being shunted out of service on the ground that he had submitted a manipulated certificate relating to High School showing his date of birth as 5th July 1988 though, in the inquiry, it had transpired that earlier he had appeared in the High School Examination during the year 1998-99 showing his date of birth as 6th May 1984 and his name as Chandra Shekhar son of Ram Nagina. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dispensing with the service of the petitioner has been passed without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that the enquiry of which reference finds place in the impugned order was held behind the back of the petitioner. It is, thus, contended that the order is in breach of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. Perusal of the Paragraph 8 and 9 of the writ petition reveals that specific assertions have been made by the petitioner that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to him. A perusal of the impugned order also does not reveal that any notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents very fairly submitted that liberty may be granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30th May 2014 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed only on the ground that it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It shall be open to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.";