RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.N. Gangwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Triloki Nath for the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pilibhit, respondent No. 3. Under challenge is an order of termination of service issued by the District Collector/District Magistrate, Pilibhit terminating the services of the petitioner, a Cooperative Collection Amin posted at Lalauriphera, District Pilibhit. It emerges from the record that the petitoner was appointed as Collection Amin vide appointment order dated 4.4.1989 under the orders of Collector/District Magistrate, Pilibhit as Kurk Amin as has been indicated in the order of appointment. He continued in service and thereafter by the impugned order of termination passed on 10.9.1992, his services were terminated and following orders of termination which has been issued against the petitioner is quoted below:
(2.) BEING aggrieved by this order of termination, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 14.12.1992. Counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Triloki Nath has strongly opposed the writ petition and drawn the attention of the Court to the letter of appointment and various submissions made in the petition. According to Sri Triloki Nath, the petitioner was merely in a temporary employment and his services could be terminated at any time. He has highlighted the terms and conditions stipulated in the order of appointment dated 4.4.1989. The performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Collection was poor and he could not achieve the target fixed by the Rules. Due to these reasons the appointing authority had no other option except to invoke the terms and conditions indicated in the order of appointment and terminated the temporary service of the petitioner who was merely a temporary employee. His service could be terminated at any time. There was justification to invoke the termination clause. He has drawn attention of the Court. In the rejoinder-affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner has rebutted the submissions. He has laid much stress that the order is punitive and stigmatic and the petitioner's service were terminated without holding enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services could be terminated at any time with one month's notice. A bare perusal of the impugned termination order reveals that the order casts aspersion on the conduct of the petitioner. The order appears to be punitive and stigmatic. Petitioner's service has been terminated as he could not achieve the target in recovering the dues. He has also made interpolations in the record. The order appears to be punitive also and due to these allegations the petitioner's service has been terminated. It is settled that before passing such punitive order, opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioner. This has not been done in the present case. Principles of natural justice have been violated. Petitioner's services could have been terminated by an order of termination simplicitor. The appointing authority has not chosen the same rather he has chosen to pass a punitive order which may result in evil consequence to the petitioner in the continuance of this order. If he would have been afforded opportunity of hearing, he could have defended himself. He has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeals Nos. 8467-68 of 1 995, State of U.P. and others v. Chandra Prakash Pandey and others decided on 20.3.2001 .
(3.) IN view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. All the necessary consequences shall follow. As far as the payment of back wages is concerned, since the petitioner has not worked during the pendency of the litigation, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding payment of back wages, it would be appropriate that the District Magistrate, Pilibhit should pay Rs. 50.000/- as compensation to the petitioner. This amount is being awarded as a stigmatic and punitive order was passed against the petitioner and he has to pursue the litigation for 17 years before this Court.;