( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a temporary Mazdoor working at Ghaziabad. His services have been terminated vide order dated 26. 10. 2004 after enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings, it has been found that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud by preparing fictitious documents.

( 3 ) IN the present case, services of the petitioner were terminated as far back as in 1 October, 2004 by the impugned order. There is serious dispute about the fact as to whether the petitioner obtained appointed by preparing forged and fictitious documents or not. A preliminary objection has been raised that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious retried before the Labour Court.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jitendra nath Srivastava v. Union of India (2002) 2 UPLBEC-1453 wherein the Court had interfered in the order of termination. In that case also, the writ petitioner had come through Central administrative Tribunal.

( 5 ) HE has also relied upon a decision in Anupam Dubey v. Sachiv, Basic Siksha Parishad (2004