- (1.) By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service dated December 17, 1993 received on December 22, 1993 contained in Annexure No. 31 to the writ petition. The petitioner further prays for a writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service. Apart froin this the petitioner has also prayed for a writ of quo warranto against opposite party No. 4 challenging the authority and questioning the holding of post as Managing Director of U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation. At the time of arguments relief No. (a) writ of quo warranto was not pressed and, therefore, we are not considering the said relief while disposing of this Writ Petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist in U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. (UPTRON) on July 8, 1982. Initially he was kept on probation for one year but he was confirmed within six months. The petitioner thereafter was confirmed on the post of Stenographer in July, 1985. It is further pointed out that the petitioner again was promoted to the post of Junior Personal Secretary in July, 1986, It is not disputed that the Government in order to promote the developments of electronic Units in Hill region formed new corporation namely U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation (HILTRON). The petitioner's services were transferred to the HILTRON on October 26, 1986 and he had also been sanctioned a sum of Rs. 150/- per month in addition to his salary as special Allowance. The petitioner therafter was promoted to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Executive in March, 1987. It is not disputed that the petitioner's services were permanently absorbed in the U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation (HILTRON) vide order dated May 8, 1990. It is said that in 1993 one Nauneet Mathur was transferred to Ram Nagar but he filed a writ petition and obtained a stay order. In these circumstances, the petitioner was transferred temporarily to see the functions of Ram Nagar in February, 1993. It is also alleged that during his temporary posting the petitioner was directed to report to Shri Bharat Sinha, Deputy Manager at the Headquarters Lucknow. The petitioner joined the post at Ram Nagar on February 15, 1993. It is said that on March 18, 1993 the petitioner fell ill and, therefore, he moved leave application for 15 days. He again applied for extension of the leave from April 3, 1993 to April 9, 1993. The petitioner was not well hence he again moved an application for extension of medical leave from April 10, 1993 to April 17, 1993 and finally from April 18, 1993 to May 20, 1993 vide letters dated April 20, 1993 and April 23, 1993. It is not disputed that the petitioner was granted leave up to April 9, 1993. The application of the petitioner for leave from April 10, 1993 to April 17, 1993 is alleged to have been rejected by the authorities concerned on April 15, 1993. It is stated by the petitioner that letter dated April 15, 1993 rejecting the application for medical leave of the petitioner was received by the petitioner on June 4, 1993. It is not disputed that the applications for leave by which the leave was prayed for from April 18, 1993 to May 20, 1993 vide applications dated April 20, 1993 and April 23, 1993 have not been disposed of and no orders have been passed on the said applications. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has not been informed that his application for leave from April 18, 1993 to May 20, 1993 cannot be entertained. The petitioner was admittedly suspended on May 1, 1993. As the petitioner was not paid salary for the months of March and April, 1993, therefore, he moved an application and on the said application orders have been passed that petitioner's pay for March and April, 1993 be sent to Ram Nagar vide letter dated June 10, 1993 contained In Annexure No. 25. As pointed out above the petitoner's leave was granted up to April 9, 1993, therefore, he was charge-sheeted for over-staying from April 10, 1993 to April 30, 1993 and was finally removed from service on the basis of over-staying as mentioned above. The above mentioned facts are not disputed except the counsel for the opposite parties contended that the letter rejecting the medical leave was sent through registered post to the petitioner on April 16, 1993 but the opposite parties have no information about the service of the said letter on the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has categorically stated that he had received the said letter on June 4, 1993. On the basis of the above mentioned facts the counsel for the petitioner contended that even accepting the fact that the petitioner has over-stayed 20 days, the order for removal from service is harsh one and the opposite parties committed an error in awarding such harsh punishment. According to the petitioner, he could be punished by awarding some minor punishment. Apart from this, it is also contended by the petitioner's counsel that no enquiry has been conducted in this case nor the petitioner was informed of any date or place of the enquiry. It is also contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of removal from service contained in Annexure No. 31, is, on the face of it, illegal as the authority concerned has considered the extraneous matters also. He pointed out that after receipt of the enquiry report and the reply, the authority concerned made enquiry from Bharat Sinha and thereafter passed an order on the basis of the said enquiry. According to him this enquiry from Bharat Sinha and taking into account the report of Bharat Sinha, is nothing except to show that the order was passed on consideration of extraneous matters.
(3.) We have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel at great length. The parties Counsel agrees that the present writ petition can be disposed of on the question of punishment alone without entering the merits of the case.;