ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 22.11.2011 passed by opposite party no. 2 (wrongly mentioned as removal) from the post of Safaikramchari.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on a class IV post vide order dated 14.11.2008. On the alleged complaint made by one Sri Radhey Shyam, an enquiry was conducted about the alleged forged mark -sheet submitted by the petitioner to get the said appointment. The petitioner was not given opportunity to defend him in the said enquiry and the impugned order has been passed merely issuing show cause notice to petitioner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.