Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J. under Chapter VII Rule 1(2) of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952). To question correctness of the judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 8563 of 1993, this appeal is before us. Under the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion that order terminating the appellant-petitioner from service is an order simplicitor, thus, no interference therein is warranted.
(2.) In brief, factual matrix of the case is that an appointment was accorded to the appellant-petitioner as Junior Engineer under an order dated 03.01.1987 passed by the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The appointment was on probation for a period of two years in temporary capacity against a substantive vacancy. On completion of two years of service, no order confirming the appellant-petitioner in service was passed but he was allowed to continue therein. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under a statement of charges dated 26.04.1991. The proceedings, so initiated, were dropped under a letter dated 30.11.1992 after recording evidence adduced by the Department. On 03.12.1992, the Cane Commissioner terminated the appellant-petitioner from service by stating that his services are no more required. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench after referring several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "67. The aforesaid are not exhaustive, but lay down some of the principles to find out whether termination of an employee is simplicitor or punitive. Each and every case has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, but broadly the aforesaid are the factors to find out whether termination of an employee is punitive or not. 68. In the present case, there is nothing to show that termination of petitioner, in any manner, is stigmatic or by way of punishment. Petitioner was purely a temporary employee having been engaged as interim measure, hence had no right to hold the post or continue in service."
(3.) Validity of the judgment impugned is assailed on several counts inter-alia:- 1. Learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the order terminating the appellant-petitioner from service was founded on an allegation of misconduct, therefore, the same was not a simplicitor one. 2. Learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that by the force of an interim order, the appellant-petitioner remained in service of the respondent-employer for a period of 26 years and during the period aforesaid, the services rendered were always found satisfactory. The employer also awarded all selection grades to the appellant-petitioner, hence the appropriate course before the Court was to assume that the appellant-petitioner deserves to be confirmed in service. 3. Learned Single Bench failed to assign any reason to arrive at the conclusion that order of termination was not stigmatic or by way of punishment.;