- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioner appeared in Subordinate Agricultural Service Examination held under the Directorate of Agriculture, U. P. in the year 1968 and stood first in Lucknow Region and was placed at sixth position in the State of U. P. He was finally selected and thereafter in pursuance of letter of Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration) dated 17. 11. 1971, petitioner was allocated under the District Agriculture Officer, Raebareilly and communication qua the same was sent on 30. 11. 1971 by Deputy Director of Agriculture, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, asking the petitioner to report and join under the District Agriculture Officer, Raebareilly, within seven days of the receipt of the letter, failing which appointment order would be treated as cancelled. Relevant extract of the said order dated 30. 11. 1971 is being quoted below: " In pursuance of Joint Director of Agriculture (Admn.) U. P. 's letter No. AC-3224-26/3 Appt. 70 dt. 17. 11. 1971 Sri Hausila Pandey is hereby allotted under the Distt. Agri. Officer Raebareilly vice Sri V. K. Bisaria expired. Sri Hausila Pandey should report for duty to the Distt. Agri. Officer Raebareilly. Formal appointment and posting order of Sri Hausila Pandey will be issued by the Distt. Agriculture,. Officer Raebareilly in accordance with the planning (A) Deptt) G. O. No. 13084/xxxxvi-NES/dt. 15. 6. 61 on the usual terms and condition under the intimation to the Joint Director of Agriculture (Admn.) U. P. , (AG-Section) Lucknow and to this office. 1. Sri Pandey should join under the Distt. Agriculture, Officer Raebarelly within 7 days of receipt of this letter, failing which appointment order would be treated as cancelled.
(2.) HE will not get transfer allowance T. A. for the joining of his first appointment. (R. P. SINGH) DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, LUCKNOW REGION, LUCKNOW. " 2. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Raebareilly in following terms: " In view of the order No. 5658 dated 30. 11. 71 of Dy. Director of Agri. , Lucknow Region, Lucknow, Sri Hausila Pandey is hereby appointed in Gr. III of S. A. S. In the scale of pay of Rs. 120-6-180-8-220 plus usual dearness allowance as admissible under rules and orders of the Government issued from time to time. The candidate must report for duty to the undersigned within 10 days from the receipt of the order. No T. A. and D. A. for joining his first appointment will be given to him. HE will have to furnish the following certificates before his joining. His services are purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without notice. " Thereafter, petitioner joined his duties at Raebareilly and thereafter was transferred to various place in course of his service and at the time of institution of present writ petition, petitioner had been performing and discharging duties at Gairwara under Suitha Block, district Jaunpur. On 18. 5. 1981, District Agriculture Officer issued an order asking petitioner to hand over 112 bags of Di Ammonia Phosphate to Janardan Pathak, who was attached to the District Agriculture Officer without taking any receipt. Petitioner submits that in pursuance of order dated 18. 5. 1981, passed by District Agriculture Officer, Jaunpur petitioner handed over 112 bags of Di Ammonia Phosphate to Mr. Janardan Pathak and receipt was issued in lieu of the same on 29. 5. 1981. Petitioner was asked to hand over the charge of godown of Gariwara to one Munni Lal and in this background petitioner submits that as the District Agriculture Officer had not paid the cost of 112 bags of Di Ammonia Phosphate taken vide order dated 18. 5. 1981 and the papers were lying with the District Agriculture Officer, petitioner requested for payment of the amount. Petitioner submits that this annoyed the District Agriculture Officer and petitioner was placed under suspension. Petitioner has contended that said suspension order was not justifiable and same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5677 of 1982 and thereafter during pendency of said writ petition, services of petitioner had been dispensed with by order dated 30. 7. 1983. Said order of dispensation of service has been questioned by way of amendment application, which was allowed. This Court on 2. 9. 1998 dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner and relegated him to the alternative remedy before U. P. Public Services Tribunal. Against the said order Special Appeal No. 893 of 1998 had been filed. The Special Appeal Bench allowed the Special Appeal on 13. 11. 2002 and Single Judge has been directed to decide the matter on merits on the basis of the affidavits exchanged between parties. Pleadings inter se parties had already been exchanged before passing order by Special Appeal Bench. Now present writ petition is being finally heard and decided with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI P. K. SRIvastava, advocate, assisted by SRI Amit SRIvastava, advocate, has assailed the validity of decision taken against the petitioner on two grounds: (I) District Agriculture Officer is not appointing authority of the petitioner, as such he had no authority to pass the order of termination, as such order is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) in the present case, enquiry officer has not conducted any enquiry, whatsoever, as at no point of time after furnishing reply by petitioner, any date, time or place for enquiry was fixed by the enquiry officer for undertaking enquiry, as such this is a case of no enquiry and the decision taken on the basis of the said enquiry is of no consequence and the order dispensing with the service of petitioner based on the same is liable to be quashed. Learned standing counsel, Sri J. K. Tiwari, on the other hand, has countered the said submission by contending the appointment letter had been issued by the District Agriculture Officer, as such petitioner is stopped in questioning the validity of the action taken against him by the District Agriculture Officer, who was appointing authority and coupled with this full fledged opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order in question, as such impugned order is liable to be maintained and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;