B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Smt. Abha Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, holding brief of Sri R.S. Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the re spondents No. 3 and 5.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9.5.2007 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) to the extent it purports to reject the petitioner's representation filed by him for being rein stated on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalaya Kosam Inam, Block Kaushambi, District Kaushambi. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalaya Kosam Inam, Block Kaushambi, District Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as 'the School' on 16.4.1992. The petitioner joined the post of his appointment on 29.4.1992 but the petitioner's salary was not paid, which compelled the peti tioner to file an application before the Competent Authority on 4.5.1992 for payment of his salary. As the petitioner's salary remained unpaid, the peti tioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10378 of 1993 before this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner fell HI in the last week of June, 1993 and remained confined to bed till September, 1993. Upon recovering from his illness, the petitioner submitted his joining along-with all the relevant documents including medical certificates. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join as a result the petitioner was compelled to file another writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45948 of 1993. The Writ Petition No. 45948 of 1993 was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.8.2005 with the following direction : - "In view of the aforesaid fact, it will be in the interest of justice that the respondent No. 1 Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kaushambi be directed to consider the case of the petitioner regarding his joining and regarding pay ment of salary, it is provided that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation annexing all relevant documents including the application of sanction of leave and medical certificates before the respondent No. 1 within a period of three weeks from today. The respondent No. 1 Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kaushambi is directed to pass appropriate and de tailed order according to law regarding grievance of the petitioner prefer ably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certi fied copy of this order. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." The representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8.8.2005 has been decided by the impugned order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby al though the petitioner has been paid salary for the period of his absence i.e. from 29.4.1992 to 18.9.1993, the prayer made by the petitioner for being permit ted to join the post of his appointment has been refused on the ground that since the petitioner had remained continuously absent for more than five years after 18.9.1993, his service was deemed to have been terminated under Rule 18 of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner was violative of the principles of natural jus tice and that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without giv ing a show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, no charge-sheet was issued nor any enquiry was held and therefore, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of being continu ously absent for five years was patently erroneous and violative of the princi ples of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even under Rule 18 of Vol. II of the Financial Hand Book, the respondents were under an obligation to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in spite of the fact that the petitioner was continuously absent for more than five years and that there could be no deemed termination of his services on the ground of being con tinuously absent for five years.;