- (1.) SINCE the pleadings are complete in this case. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
(2.) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the Respondents. The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order dated 08.10.2005 (Annexure - 15), passed by the Respondent No. 4, whereby his appointment as Computer Assistant is cancelled. Challenge also is to the show - cause notice dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure -12), issued to the petitioner prior to the order of termination of his service. Besides praying for quashing the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Respondents restraining them from interfering with the petitioner's services and also directing them to pay his salary.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that pursuant to an Advertisement being Advertisement No. 2 of 2000 and Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, issued by the Respondent -University, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Computer Assistant in the University, he had applied for the post under the Scheduled Caste category. Upon being called by an Interview letter, he had faced the Interview Board, and thereafter, he was given a letter of appointment and pursuant to the letter of appointment, he submitted his joining in the Office of the Respondent -University on 06.04.2005. Though since after the date of his joining, he was discharging his duties, he was not paid the salary in spite of his repeated demands and on the contrary by the impugned show -cause notice (Annexure -12), he was called upon to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled and a criminal case should not be lodged against him on the allegation that upon a preliminary enquiry, it was found that he had secured his appointment letter fraudulently in collusion with Shri N.C. Das, the then Director (Administration) by committing forgery and by putting the University to loss. The petitioner submitted his show -cause replies demanding a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and the materials on the basis of which the accusation of committing forgery and obtaining the appointment letter 2 [W.P. (S) 6136 of 2005] [W.P. (S) 6136 of 2005] fraudulently was made. Despite, his show cause replies, the impugned letter of termination of his services (Annexure -15) was issued.;