JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of removal from service dated 30.05.2023 passed against the petitioner by the Managing Director, U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited, Kanpur Nagar.

2. It would be profitable to refer to facts giving rise to this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed to the post a Salesman in the year 1994 by an order passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited, Kanpur Nagar (for short ‘the Corporation’). The petitioner says that he has been working ever since and until orders depriving him of his employment were passed. The petitioner says that he has had an unblemished career with no complaint, punishment or adverse entry awarded to him. Prior to the present proceedings, he was never subjected to any disciplinary proceedings. About the Corporation, the petitioner says that it was established in the year 1973 by the State Government as a Government Company registered under Section 67 of the Companies Act, 1956. The State Government has a share holding to the extent of 77.42% with the balance 22.58% being owned by the Central Government. Thus, the Corporation is fully owned and controlled by the two Governments. The Chairman, the Managing Director and the entire Board of Directors are appointed by the State Government.

3. According to the petitioner, because of poor management by officials of the State Government, the financial condition of the Corporation became pitiable, as the petitioner has chosen to describe it. The Corporation is not in a position to pay salary to its employees, who were, therefore, frequently transferred from one place to another without any rhyme or reason. It is pointed out that raising this issue, a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3442 (S/S) of 1999, U.P. Rajya Hathkargha Nigam Ltd. Kshetriya Karamchari Sangathan and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, was filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, where an interim order dated 06.08.1999 was passed to the effect that if salary to the members of the petitioner association is not paid, they will not be able to leave their place of posting, which would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said petition is represented to be still pending before the Lucknow Bench, where further orders dated 07.01.2013, 12.03.2013 and 22.04.2013 have been passed.

4. The petitioner says that because of the poor financial condition of the Corporation, a state of anarchy became order of the day with the Managing Director of the Corporation asking employees to work in the field in order to raise revenues to pay off rent for the building occupied by the Sale Centres of the Corporation. The income from the sale of handloom goods, because of poor quality, fell drastically, leading to effacement of revenues. Several salesmen could not garner resources to pay off rent of the buildings, where Sale Centres of the Corporation were functioning.

5. The Managing Director placed the petitioner under suspension, as the petitioner says, on bogus, false and vague allegations that the petitioner could not make payment of rent for the Sale Centre premises and did not comply with the directions of the Head Office. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 06.02.2013 with a direction to submit a reply within 21 days. The petitioner put in his reply dated 12.08.2013, denying the charges. The Managing Director of the Corporation without considering the petitioner’s reply in the proper perspective, concluded the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and revoked his order of suspension, reinstating him in service with a warning. This order was passed on 11.09.2013, which attached the petitioner with the office of the Corporation at the Lindsey Street, Kolkata. The petitioner says that prior to the order dated 11.09.2013, he was posted at the Sale Centre, Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand and all his family were residing with him there. The petitioner’s children were reading at