- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri P.N. Singh and Smt. Aruna Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.11.1997, passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal dismissing the claim petition No. 171/1/90. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Jeep Driver and was posted at Ghazipur in the year 1976. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 30.10.1980. A charge-sheet dated 8.2.1981 was served upon the petitioner raising various allegations which precisely relates to absence from duty from time to time and not complying with the orders passed by some of the authorities. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has submitted a report to the District Magistrate. Instead of passing of order in pursuance to the enquiry report, the competent authority has terminated the petitioner from service by the impugned order dated 30.9.1981. The order of removal has been passed in pursuance to U.P. Temporary Govern­ment Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, in short, "1975 Rules". Feel­ing aggrieved with the impugned order of termination, the petitioner approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the claim petition pre­cisely on the ground that being a temporary Government servant, the petitioner was removed from service.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel for the peti­tioner has submitted that even assuming that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant but since he was served with a charge-sheet to which he submitted a reply and the enquiry was concluded and instead of taking a decision in pursuance to enquiry report, the order of termination has been passed under rules, hence the order of termination is not sustainable under law. It has been further submitted that after service of charge-sheet, no oral evidence was re­corded. The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity to lead evidence in defence. However, copy of the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted that since the entire enquiry was held in violation of principle of natural justice without recording of oral evidence and also without providing oppor­tunity to cross-examine the witnesses, the order passed by the competent au­thority under 1975 Rules terminating the petitioner's services is bad in law. It has also been submitted that the order of termination is punitive in nature. The petitioner's Counsel also submits that the order of termination does not disclose that it has been passed in pursuance to the enquriry report.;