ORDER :

1. This is a writ petitioner's appeal, arising out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing Writ-A No. 40480 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner, questioning an order dated July 21, 2006, terminating his services, as also the order dated March 10, 2008 passed by the State Government, dismissing the writ petitioner's departmental appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are these:

The writ petitioner was appointed as a driver by the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh vide order dated May 5, 2003 against a substantive and vacant post. The writ petitioner was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 17(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Department Driver's Service Rules, 1993. His name was placed in the letter of appointment, that carried names of all appointees, at serial No.5 of the list of appointees in the OBC Categories. At the time of appointment, the writ petitioner was required to fill up a verification form carrying all necessary details relating to him. The writ petitioner duly filled up the form, disclosing all necessary information. The form aforesaid was filled up on May 12, 2003. After the aforesaid formality was over, the writ petitioner was permitted to join as a driver in the Excise Department on May 17, 2003 and since then he has been performing his duties regularly, as he says to the satisfaction of his superiors.

3. The writ petitioner was initially posted at the Govardhan Check Post in District Mathura and thereafter transferred to District Maharajganj vide order order dated May 30, 2005. It appears that on February 27, 2004, a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner, saying that he had made an incorrect declaration with regard to the non-pendency of any criminal case against him, inasmuch as according to a report by the S.S.P., Gorakhpur, Case Crime No. 302 of 2002, under Sections 323, 504, 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahjanwa, District Gorakhpur was pending against him. The writ petitioner says that he submitted a reply to the show cause notice on April, 15, 2004, taking a stand that he had not concealed any information with regard to pendency of Crime No. 302 of 2002.

4. It is the writ petitioner's case that the aforesaid crime was registered due to a dispute in the family amongst co-sharers relating to agricultural land. He did not have any information about the pendency of the crime when he filled up his verification form, saying that there was no case against him. It was also his defence in the reply that his name had been mentioned in the crime due to the family dispute without any basis to it. There is also a mention of the fact by the writ petitioner in the petition that the case was lodged against him at the instance of a Constable Driver, Ravindra Nath Yadav, posted in the office of the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, who had misused his position to get a false case registered against the writ petitioner and his family members. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that the writ petitioner's family have already lodged an FIR against Ravindra Nath Yadav vide Crime No. 302-A of 2002, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506, 325 IPC, P.S. Shahjanwa, District Gorakhpur. The writ petitioner after trial in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2004, State Vs. Virai and others, has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated August 14, 2006. Even before that judgment came, the Excise Commissioner, looking into the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, in an arbitrary and mechanical fashion discarded his reply and terminated the writ petitioner's services vide order dated July 21, 2006.

5. The writ petitioner's case is that the order dated July 21, 2006 was passed without adequate opportunity of hearing and prior to that order, neither disciplinary proceedings were initiated, a charge sheet issued or departmental inquiry held. The writ petitioner on August 18, 2006 made a representa