JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. A.K. Mishra and Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

2. Under challenge in this writ petition is the termination order dated 21.9.2012, passed by Chief Information Commissioner, U.P. State Information Commission, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (respondent No.2). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned termination order, Annexure No.1.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peshkar vide office order dated 1.2.2007 by respondent No.2 along with eighteen other employees on various posts in the department of the respondent. The appointment of the petitioner was temporary in nature. On 27.6.2012, the Deputy Secretary, respondent No.3 sent an official letter No./303 Nazarat Camp Upsachiv wherein he apprised the petitioner that on a complaint made by an anonymous person, the respondent No.2 had directed the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner.

Mainly two allegations were levelled against the petitioner in the letter dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure No.2). The first allegation is that the amendment in the cause list has been made after accepting money from the litigants in violation of the rules and secondly, he purchased a house worth Rs.15 lacs. The petitioner was required to submit his reply within two days. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 12.6.2012. The petitioner was again required to provide copy of the cause list w.e.f. 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2012 vide letter dated 4.7.2012 by the respondent No.3 for the purpose of enquiry. In compliance of the said letter, the petitioner vide letter dated 5.7.2012 submitted copy of the entire cause list and also tendered apology for his omission in listing of few cases in the cause list due to inadvertence. Consequently, an enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.3, allegedly at the back of the petitioner without affording proper opportunity of hearing to him. The enquiry report was submitted by the respondent No.3, however, a copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the impugned order dated 21.9.2012 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated apparently seems to be innocuously worded. A perusal of the letter dated 27.6.2012 sent by respondent No.3 to the petitioner and its language clearly demonstrates that the letter/order is, in fact, by way of punishment which is punitive in nature and stigmatic. It is submitted that Article 311 of the Constitution of India makes no distinction between the permanent and temporary posts. In case a show cause notice has been issued on the allegation regarding the mis-conduct or the charges such as charges of corruption or taking bribe in listing cases, then consequential order of termination howsoever innocuously worded may be, is not a termination simplicitor but it is a termination by way of punishment and in view of the settled proposition of law, it is always open for the court to lift veil in such cases to find out the real basis of the order so passed. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied on High Court of Punjab & Haryana through R.G. Versus Ishwar Chand Jain and another (relevant para 24). He has further relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi Versus State of U.P. and others (2000)5 SCC 152 (relevant para 12).

It is further submitted that not only Annexure No.2 but the counter affidavit filed by respondents, particularly para 9 thereof leaves no doubt that the impugned order has been passed by way of punishment, therefore, in view of the settled law as held in the aforesaid cases, the order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner who has been terminated from service for no fault on his part and the order being illegal is entitled to back