Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination from service dated 7.12.1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) and for other relief.
(2.) The case made out in the writ petition by the petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement made by the Executive Engineer. Public Tubewell Construction Division, Fatehpur, the petitioner submitted application for appointment in the post of Tubewell Operator and after passing written examination and interview the petitioner was directed to submit his domicile certificate and the same was submitted by the petitioner. Thereupon one Sri Rajendra Singh submitted an application stating therein that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of village Tarna whereupon the matter was verified as regards petitioner's domicile certificate. After such enquiry, the petitioner was directed by the Executive Engineer, Public Tubewell Construction Division, Fatehpur for training for holding the post of Tubewell Operator and on completion of training, the petitioner was served an appointment letter as Tubewell Operator on part time basis. On 23.9.1988 the Executive Engineer, Public Tubewell Construction Division. Fatehpur directed the petitioner to show cause as regards domicile certificate and said notice was issued on the basis of the information given by the S.D.O., Chail, Allahabad that the petitioner is not resident of village Tarna, District Allahabad. The petitioner submitted his reply along with a document showing that he is resident of village Tarna district Allahabad. A charge-sheet was issued on 14.2.1991 against the petitioner and he filed his reply along with domicile certificate and other documents. On 7.12.1991 the respondent No. 1 passed an order of termination against the petitioner. Hence this writ petition was filed challenging the said order of termination.
(3.) Sri Rajendra Singh filed impleadment application which was allowed by order dated 4.3,1994. The said impleaded respondent also filed counter-affidavit and contested the proceeding at the time of hearing,;