- (1.) These writ petitions filed by Sri Satya Narain Singh, petitioner are connected and since the pleadings are complete, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court by this common judgement.
(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to these writ petitions are that petitioner Satya Narain Singh was working as Instructor and Motor Mechanic, who had proceeded on leave from 14th January, 1974. Initially he was sanctioned earned leave on an average pay for 31 days from January 14, 1974 to February 13, 1974 and further medical leave on full pay for 61 days from February 14, 1974 to April 15, 1974. From April 16, 1974 to August 13, 1974 the petitioner submitted a leave application alongwith medical certificate though it was not countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer. It appears that the said leave was not sanctioned and he was required to submit proper application. On and after August 14, 1974 the petitioner remained absent without their being any application for leave and consequently the appointing authority treating his absence being unauthorised and illegal, passed an order of termination on 30.12.1978. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal/by filing a claim petition No. 142/TN80 of 1980 renumbered as 418/79 of 1979 which was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 8.12.1981. Thereafter he preferred a Writ Petition No. 524 of 1982 challenging the order of Tribunal as well as the order of termination. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.4.1989 and the following order was passed : "The petitioner has claimed the reliefs in this case. The first relief is for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the termination order dated December 30, 1978 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition and the judgement of the Tribunal dated December 8, 1981 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). The second relief is for the grant of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner his entire salary from January 12, 1974. So far as the first relief is concerned it can be granted outright in view of the conclusions reached above. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that no order can Abe passed with regard to the second relief at this stage in view of the fact that when the termination order is quashed, it will be open to the respondents to hold an inquiry and give an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed termination and the matter of pay, confirmation and other service conditions will be subject to the result of that inquiry. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has not claimed any relief with regard to the matter of recovery of Rs. 4,554.79 P. and nothing has been urged regarding the same. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the termination order dated December 30, 1978 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition and the order of the Tribunal dated December 8, 1981 contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. It is clarified that it will be open to the respondents to hold proper inquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause in respect of the proposed termination order and take appropriate decision regarding termination of services of the petitioner or otherwise and the matter of pay etc. will be subject to'the result of that inquiry."
(3.) Pursuant to the judgment dated 12.4.1989, Director, Training and Employment, U.P. passed an order dated 18.2.1990 reinstating the petitioner and posted him in Industrial Training Institute, Muzaffarnagar and also communicated him that a departmental enquiry shall be conducted against him with respect to his unauthorised absence etc. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and ultimately after departmental enquiry a report was submitted on 21.2.1992 wherein the enquiry officer held that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from April 16, 1974 to December 30, 1978 and therefore he was not entitled for any salary for the aforesaid period. He also held that the petitioner is also guilty of causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 4,584.79 P. and therefore the said amount is liable to be recovered from him. A notice dated 13.10.1995 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services be not terminated and applying the principles of 'no work no pay ' he should not be paid any salary for the period from 16.4.1974 to 30.12.1978 and 31.12.1978 to 6.3.1990 and the aforesaid period should also not be taken into account for the purpose of increments in salary and Rs. 4,584.79 P. bg recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.11.1995. Thereafter the punishing authority i.e. Additional Director. (Administration) passed order dated 9.2.1996 in term of the show cause notice. In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner filed a claim petition No. 248 of 1991 before the Tribunal seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay him salary since 1974 till 1990. The aforesaid claim petition was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 1.3.1995 observing that:;