- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned coun sel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) BY means of this petition, petitioner challenges the order of termination dated 6-11-1985. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as class IVth employee in the year 1965 in temporary capacity in the Juvenile Court at Varanasi. Ultimately he was transferred from Varanasi to Social Welfare Scheme. It was on 15-5-82 that the petitioner was promoted to the class III post, as it is evident from the order of promotion contained in Annexure II to the rejoinder affidavit as well as Annexure III to the writ petition, which is the relieving order. Thereafter, without assigning any reason and without affording any oppor tunity to the petitioner, the impugned order of termination has been passed on 6-11 -85. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has put in about 20 years service in the department, therefore, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdic tion to terminate his service without follow ing the procedure prescribed under law. In the meanwhile, petitioner was also promoted from class IV to the class HI post. His services there after, shall be deemed to have been regularised. Therefore the order of termination is liable to be quashed.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on be half of the respondents, the facts stated in the writ petition have not been controve rted. The fact and date of promotion, of the petitioner, as stated above, has been ad mitted in para 9 of the counter affidavit; but it has been stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory as such his services have been terminated. If the facts a stated in the counter affidavit are accepted, the order of termina tion shall become the order of punishment and the same could not be passed without following the procedure prescribed under the rules. In any view of the matter and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has served the department for 20 years, it was not open to the respondents to terminate the service of the petitioner un ceremoniously and without following the procedure prescribed under law.;