- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The two petitioners have challenged their respective termination by orders dated 17-6-1991 at Annexures 16 and 17 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed initially on ad hoc basis and thereafter they were appointed against clear vacancies from the post of Class IV. Petitioner No. 1 was so appointed on 29-11-1988 and the petitioner No. 2 on 1-11-1988.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the letter dated 2-4-1991 at Annexure-15-A to the writ petition for contending that the termination of the petitioners though was termination simpliciter but actually the same was by way of punishment. Reference was also made to the statements made in the counter-affidavit disclosing serious charges against the petitioner with a contention that in such facts termination was not valid and proper. Facts have been stated in the counter- affidavit regarding illegalities in the matter of appointment of the petitioners claiming that there was no proper appointment even. Petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavit. After considering the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. I find that the respondents themselves contended that termination had to be affected because of the irregularities in the matter of petitioner's appointment. Such termination on such serious charges attaching stigma has been effected without following the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also refers to the judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Chief Medical Officer, District Deoria and another, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14752 of 1991, decided on 12-10-1995 considering similar appointments and cancellation of such appointments of similar grounds and holding that such termination orders could not stand.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts of the case as also the law referred to, I find that the termination of petitioners' service though appear to be termination simpliciter but in fact the same was passed by reason of strong allegations of serious nature as disclosed in the counter-affidavit and relied on in support of the impugned orders. Admittedly, petitioners were not given any opportunity before passing the said termination orders. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders at Annexures-16 and 17 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The respondents will allow the petitioners to join the post within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and will pay them current salary month by month in accordance with law. The respondents will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law as regards allegations made in respect of the petitioners' appointment. The respondents will also pass appropriate orders in respect of arrears of pay for the period the petitioners did not work by reason of the impugned orders.;