D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. Akhilesh Singh appearing with Mr. C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of the petitioner's service under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, is in fact a penalty in disguise and has been inflicted with stigma without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. He has taken me through the statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit as well as Annexure-C.A.-12 and points out that the respondents had terminated services of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner is in fact Yadu Vir Singh and not Om Vir Singh and Yadu Vir Singh had impersonified Om Vir Singh in order to seek appointment taking advantage of school certificates of Om Vir Singh. On enquiry by Mr. Bhagwan Singh, Circle Officer, Gurusahaiganj, Fatehgarh, it was found that one Rajvir Singh had made a complaint against the petitioner to the effect that Yadu Vir Singh had impersonified as Om Vir Singh for securing the employment and after recording finding, he had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in fact Yadu Vir Singh and had impersonified as Om Vir Singh, therefore, steps should be taken by lodging a first information report for initiating appropriate criminal proceedings against him. Learned counsel further points out from Annexure-1 to the writ petition, namely, the order of termination, at the bottom whereof it is mentioned that services of the petitioner had been terminated on account of using a false certificate. Mr. C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner had subsequently elaborated the submissions made by Mr. Akhilesh Singh and contended that in view of settled principles of law, the order of termination in the present case cannot be sustained.
(2.) Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contended that the impugned order of termination was perfectly justified, since there was no appointment at all. In fact, the appointment was given to Yadu Vir Singh impersonifying as Om Vir Singh, therefore, it was termination of service of Yadu Vir Singh and not Om Vir Singh and in this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. Learned standing counsel further contended that in case the order of termination is set aside, in that event, the respondents may be permitted to hold a domestic enquiry against the petitioner in order to ascertain the truth. According to him, final report pursuant to the first information report accepted by the learned Magistrate does not preclude respondents from proceedings with disciplinary proceedings.
(3.) In reply, Mr. C. B. Yadav, had contended that it is no more open to the respondents to resort to disciplinary proceedings after having terminated services of the petitioner and having lodged a first information report which ended in final report. Inasmuch as it was incumbent on the respondents to hold enquiry and pass appropriate orders before issuing the order of termination.;