- (1.) S. C. Verma, J. The State of Uttar Pradesh has challenged the order of the U P. Public Services Tribunal dated 4-7-1979 passed in Claim Peti tion No. 735 (I)/iii/78.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 had filed suit No- 201 of 1973 in the Court of Muasif, Gorakhpur challenging the action of termination of his services. THE suit was ultimately transferred to the Tribunal. THE respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Typist-cum-clerk by order dated 4th May, 1962. It is alleged that Block Development Officer was annoyed on account of some incident in October 1969. THE respondent No. 1 had taken leave for five days and he remained on leave till 28-1-1970. THE order of termination dated 16-12-1969 was served on respondent No. 1 on 21-1-1970 which was challenged in the claim petition on the ground that the same has been passed by way of punishment in violation of Article 311 of the Consti tution. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-opposite parties before the Tribunal it has been stated that the claimant was accorded leave and permission to leave the station with effect from 10-10-1969 to 20-10-1969 and thereafter casual leave from 21-10-1969 to 23-10-1969. After expiry of the leave period the claimant remained absent from duty and sent an appli cation for extension of leave upto 25-11-1969 on account of illness. The claimant was informed to submit a medical certificate duly counter-signed by Civil Surgeon, Basti but neither any leave application was filed nor the certificate of illness and as such the services were terminated by order dated 26-12-1969. The Tribunal held that the work and conduct of the claimant was satisfactory throughout and it was only the Incident of absence without leave and his not returning to duty after expiry of leave and further non-compliance of the direction to submit medical certificate counter-signed by Civil Surgeon is the basis of the petitioner's termination. The background in which the order of termination has been passed established that it was by way of punishment and is not an order of termination under the terms of appointment.
(3.) THE main question for consideration is as to whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case the impugned action of termination is by way of punishment or the order dated 26-12-1969 is an order of termina tion simpliciter, under the terms of appointment and the Service Rules. I have heard the learned standing counsel and Sri K. P. Agarwal appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.;