- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri Vimal Chandra Misra learned Counsel who appears for respondents No. 2, 3 and 5. Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE petitioner was working substantively since 1986 as Head Master in Prathamik Vidyalaya, District Banda. He had proceeded on a day's casual leave on 30th July, 2003 and on the same day he was put under suspension on account of unauthorized absence from duty. However, this order of suspension was revoked on 15. 5. 2004 and the communication to the said effect was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 19th August, 2004. It is said that despite the suspension order being revoked the petitioner was not allowed to join at the institution on the pretext that he had hot produced the order of reinstatement. Accordingly, the petitioner demanded the order of reinstatement which was not supplied to him and as a result he could not rejoin. THEreafter, a notice was published in the newspaper 'amar Ujala' dated 25. 3. 2005 requiring the petitioner to join the institution before 30th March, 2005, failing which. a disciplinary action was contend plated against him for termination of his services. It appears that the petitioner could not join despite publication of the aforesaid notice in the newspaper and continued to insist for supply of the copy of the order of reinstatement. Thus, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda by the impugned order dated 17. 5. 2005 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to resume his duties and has illegally absented himself despite notice dated 25. 3. 2005. Aggrieved by this order of termination the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 11. 5. 2006 on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 5 of the U. P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973. However, this order dismissing the appeal was set aside in special appeal preferred by the petitioner and this how the petition has come up for consideration before me. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 stating that in view of the fact that a notice was published in the newspaper and since the petitioner failed to resume his duty within time stipulated therein, his services have rightly been terminated.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry or a disciplinary enquiry against him. A plain reading of the impugned order dated 17. 5. 2005 indicates that the said order has been passed solely on the basis of the notice issued in the newspaper Amar Ujala dated 25. 5. 2005. There is no reference to any enquiry or of holding of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner before imposing the above punishment of dismissal. The petitioner in paragraphs 30 and 32 of the writ petition has clearly stated that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he has been punished without holding him guilty of any misconduct. The counter affidavit is completely silent with regard to initiation of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that no disciplinary enquiry whatsoever was conducted and the impugned order of dismissal has been passed without holding him guilty of any charge or misconduct.;