B. Amit Sthalekar, J.;—

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.6.1993 terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.6.1993.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Jamadar (Sweeper) through an appointment letter on 10.2.1987. According to him name of the petitioner was registered with the employment exchange and it was forwarded by the employment exchange, Allahabad to the office of the respondent no.2, Zila Sainik Kalyan Evam Punarwas Adhikari. Interview was held and after that the petitioner was selected for the post of Sweeper. According to the petitioner his services have been terminated by giving him salary in lieu of notice which has been published in the newspaper Amrit Prabhat on 20.6.1993 and his services have been terminated w.e.f. 8.6.1993. The notice itself is dated 19.6.1993 which was published in the newspaper on 20.6.1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed in service in a regular manner but his services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India or without holding any departmental enquiry.

I have heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by one Lt. Colonel Mahendra Singh posted as Zila Sainik Kalyan Evam Punarwas Adhikari, Allahabad as respondent no.2 as well as on behalf of respondent no.1.

According to the petitioner he was appointed in substantive capacity and in any case he has completed the period of probation and there is no order extending his probation, therefore, he would be deemed to have been substantively appointed on the post in question.

It has further been submitted that although by the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that his services are being terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice but he has not been paid one month's salary nor has any notice been given to him.

Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice as mentioned in the notice dated 19.6.1993 published in the newspaper Amrit Prabhat on 20.6.1993 ( Annexure 2 to the writ petition). In proof thereof he has referred to the document filed as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit which is the advance pay paid to the petitioner for the period from 8th June to 7th July, 1993 on his termination w.e.f. 8.6.1993. Sri Pathik further submitted that in pursuance of this pay bill, the petitioner has also received his payment but this fact he has concealed in his writ petition and therefore, he has not come to the Court with clean hands and if he had disclosed this fact in this writ petition, he would not have got the interim order staying operation of the impugned notice dated 19.6.1993.

In para 6 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he has not been paid his salary of June, 1993 while he has received his salary only up to May, 1993. However, in para 10 of the writ petition, it has been stated that he is not received any notice as mentioned in the publication dated 20.6.1993 nor he has received any salary of one month as mentioned in the publication. However what is notable is that after the fact of receipt of one month's salary in lieu of notice was brought on record by the respondents through Annexure 4 to their counter affidavit, the petitioner in para 9 of the rejoinder affidavit, admitted that he had received Rs. 750/- in cash against his salary due on 1.7.1993.

It is quite obvious that if the petitioner had received Rs. 750/- in cash on 1.7.1993 it was in respect of the notice terminating his services dated 19.6.1993 as the notice subsequently mentions that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document