A. P. Misra, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 29-11-1979, passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, II, Lucknow (here - in-After referred as the Tribunal) by virtue of which the Tribunal rejected two claim petitions of the petitioner, viz. Claim No. 505/ 11/1976 and Claim No. 656/11/1976. By virtue of Claim No. 605/11/1976 and claim No. 656/11/1976. By virtue of claim No. 605/11/1976 the petitioner sought for quashing the show-cause notice dated 19th May, 1976, with a direction to respondents to treat the petitioner as confirmed Principal of the college and not to interfere in the discharge of his duties as confirmed Principal of the college. Alongwith the said claim petition an application for stay was also filed on 1st June, 1976 restraining the respondents from taking any proceeding in pursuance to charge-sheet dated 19th May, 1976, and also to refrain from interfering with the right of the petitioner in discharging his duties, as the Principal. The tribunal granted the interim order. However, since the Chairman of the Nagar Mahapalika terminated the services of the petitioner on 5th June, 1976, the petitioner filed a second Claim Petition No. 656/11/1976 seeking the relief of setting aside of the said termination order and also for a direction to treat the petitioner as confirmed Principal and not to interfere with his duties as Principal.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was duly selected committee and was appointed as a Principal in Mahatma Gandhi Palika Inter College, Ujhani, district Budaun, on the 18th December, 1974, on probation for a period of one year. According to the petitioner, the Acting Chairman, who was officiating as the Chairman, confirmed the petitioner, on 19th September, 1975. This fact of his confirmation has been disputed by the respondents. On 10th December, 1975, the probationary period of the petitioner was extended for a further period of one year. However, on 20th May, 1976, a charge-sheet dated 19th May, 1976, containing serious charges against the petitioner, were served on the petitioner. After the receipt of the said charge-sheet the petitioner by means of his letter dated 27th May, 1976, requested for certain papers to be furnished to enable him to file a reply. According to the petitioner neither any documents nor any reply to the said letter was given to him. The charges contained in the charge-sheet were regarding serious misconduct of the petitioner in respect of his personal behaviour and regarding the money of the institution. As per the said show-cause notice a reply was to be filed by the petitioner by the 4th June, 1976, but since the petitioner obtained a stay order from the Tribunal he did not file the said reply. From the termination order passed against the petitioner on the 5th June, 1976, it clear that the said order was passed since no reply was filed by the petitioner and the termination order had been passed expressly stating the various misconduct of the petitioner. The Officer terminating the services of the petitioner after recording a finding on perusal of the documentary evidence on each of the charges as against the petitioner finally passed an order that since the petitioner had been appointed on a probation for twelve months on 18th December, 1974, which was further extended from 12th December, to a further period of twelve months and during this period of probation it was found that his continuance, as Principal" is not in the interest of the Board, institution and the students of the college. Some day it may lead to Mahabharata in the college and also feel that the college money is not safe in your hands. "Therefore, this services of the petitioner were the terminated with immediate effect. It is this order which was subject-matter of challenge in the latter Claim petition.
(3.) The first main argument of the petitioner, was that in the last paragraph of the termination order, it was mentioned as a simple termination order, but in fact, his termination was by way of punishment without giving any opportunity and, therefore, the order is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also mentioned that he is confirmed on the post of Principal. However, he finally confined his argument to the first point and not to the other. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter-Affidavit was that the petitioner was only a probationer and his services were terminated because of his unsuitability during the period of probation in accordance with the U.P. Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner was only served with a show-cause notice who his services be not terminated during the probation of his service. In the counter-Affidavit, telegram of the petitioner communicating the stay order by the Tribunal is admitted to have been received on the 4th June, 1976, but was contended that there was no confirmation of the identity of the person sending the telegram and, therefore, there was no presumption about the allegations mentioned in the telegram. The registered letter was, however received in the office only on 6th June, 1976, when before that i.e., on 5th June, 1976, services of the petitioner were terminated by means of Annexure 3-A to the writ petition. According to averments of the respondents made in the counter-Affidavit the termination order does not cast any stigma on the petitioner, nor his services were terminated because of his alleged involvement in R. S. S., which is mentioned in the letter of termination.;