JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, the petitioner (in person) and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The Writ-A No. 6055 of 1989 (Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. and other) had been filed against the order dated 25.3.1989 of simplicitor termination of the services of the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.7.2001.

The office has reported that a restoration application seeking for recall of the order dated 12.7.2001 had been filed in the Registry in the year 2003 but the same could not be traced despite best efforts made by the section concerned. The order sheet does not indicate that the said restoration application had been decided. The office has, therefore, collected the photo copy of the recall application from the office of the then counsel for the petitioner in order to reconstruct the same. The office report dated 22.3.2021 for re-construction of the restoration application is accepted.

The restoration application had been filed with the contention that the case could not be marked by the office of the then counsel for the petitioner and the absence of the counsel was not deliberate. The explanation offered by the then counsel to seek recall of the order dated 12.7.2001 given in the restoration application is found satisfactory. The Restoration/Recall Application No. 1A/2/1989 is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 12.7.2001 is being recalled. The Writ-A No. 6055 of 1989 is restored to its original number.

It may further be noted that another Writ-A No. 45530 of 2003 (Anil Kumar Gupta vs. The Collector/District Magistrate Meerut and other) was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take back him in service and to pay salary. In the counter to the said writ petition, another order of termination dated 24.7.2001 had been brought on record, which had been challenged by making necessary amendments in the said writ petition with the permission of this Court.

The petitioner namely Sri Anil Kumar Gupta has been personally heard on merits in both the writ petitions.

The above two writ petitions would be referred as 'first' & 'second' writ petition from herein onwards.

3. The relevant facts of the matter in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 3.10.1986 on the post of Collection Amin in Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. The appointment letter is on record of both the above noted writ petitions. While discharging his duties, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 25.3.1989 which was an order of termination simplicitor. In the counter to the said writ petition, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner was terminated in accordance with the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 as his services were not satisfactory. It was denied that the termination order dated 25.3.1989 was passed by way of punishment and it was further stated that as such, no opportunity of hearing was required. During pendency of the first writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated in service on account of the interim order of this Court.

He was placed, thereafter, under suspension by an order dated 25.2.1997 on the allegations of embezzlement. The said suspension order was later revoked on 28.4.1997. Another suspension order dated 3.11.1998 was passed, which was also revoked on 9.12.1999 with the condition that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner shall continue. The petitioner was then transferred by an order dated 1.1.2001 from Tehsil Meerut to Tehsil Mawana. At that moment, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1095 of 2001 (Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Collector, Meerut and another) challenging the transfer order dated 1.1.2001, which was disposed of with the directions as follows:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties. I dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the representation filed by the petitioner against his t