- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Disciplinary proceed ing was initiated against the petitioner by the Government treating him to be an employee of the Government in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways in the Transport Department even after U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was in corporated and the services of the petitioner was transferred to the said Corporation.
(2.) THE petitioner had challenged the order of suspension and reversion dated 26-8-1985 and 21-1-1987 respectively in writ petition No. 1252 of 1986. In the said writ petition the ground of challenge was that the said two orders were passed by the Government though the services of the petitioner stood automatically merged in the Corporation with effect from 28-4-1982. THE said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11-9-1991 where the contentions of respondent were noted to the extent that the suspension and reversion orders were passed by the Government would be deemed to have retained the authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and also to disapprove the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Depot Marager which was subject to the approval of the Government. Ultimately in the said judg ment it was held that the petitioner was ceased to be in the employment of the Government with effect from 28-4-1982. After the merger of his service in the Cor poration, the State Government was not authorised to pass any order of approval or disapproval. It was the Corporation to take proper decision as to whether the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Transport Engineer/depot Manager should be approved not in view of the fact that the Corporation stepped in to the shoes of the State Government and would be deemed to have all the powers and authorities to take such decision as the State Government would have taken in the matter. On the basis of such finding since the petitioner was found to have at tained the age of super annuation during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court had directed that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of continuity in service. It was also Erected that al though the petitioner was entitled to salary and emoluments admissible to the post of Assistant Transport Engineer/depot Manager but the question as to his confirmation to the post of Assistant Transport Engineer/depot Manager would be decided by the authorities of the Corporation. It is alleged by Mr. P. S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the said decision dated 11-9-1991 another order was passed. on 15-6-1992 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner was granted all ser vice benefits in terms of the order dated 11-9-1991 passed in the said writ petition but however in clause 4 of the said order it was pointed out that the said order bearing date 16-5-1q02, contained in Annexure 6, would be subject to the order dated 9-11-1989 passed against the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding against him and the order whereof shall remain unaffected by virtue of order dated 15-6-1992. Mr. Beghal contends that the said order dated 9-11-1989 was not disclosed in the earlier writ petition which was decided on 11-9-1991. He has also referred to various statements made in the counter- affidavit and the Supplementary counter-affidavit in order to show that the order dated 9-11-19sj was not in existence before 11-9-1991. At the same time he had challenged the order on merit that the said order could not have been passed against the petitioner and in view of the decision dated 11-9-1991 passed in the earlier writ petition.
(3.) MR. Samir Sharma, learned Coun sel for respondents however had sup ported the said order dated 9- 11-1989 con tained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition on the ground that after 11-9-1991 a fresh enquiry was held against the petitioner in which the petitioner did not participate and accordingly a fresh order on the dis ciplinary proceeding was passed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;