Smt. Geeta Varma and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

S.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the termination order dated 9.3.1990, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. An interim order was granted by this Court on 22.1.1993 and the petitioner has been continuing on the basis of the interim order in service.

During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner expired on 28.11.2006. Thereafter the heirs of the petitioner have moved an application for substitution and they have been substituted and brought on record in place of the petitioner. Thus, the termination order requires adjudication as the heirs are claiming the retiral dues of the petitioner, which are legally due to him.

The petitioner was appointed by means of order dated 14.12.1989. The petitioner thereafter joined on the post in question on 1.1.1990. After joining of the petitioner the Settlement Officer, Consolidation sent information to the Consolidation, Commissioner, but while sending information the Settlement Officer, Consolidation committed a mistake regarding the dispatch number and the date on the basis of which the appointments have been given. The office of the Consolidation Commissioner directed the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by means of letter dated 7.3.1990 for lodging of F.I.R. under the relevant provisions of I.P.C. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation lodged the F.I.R. Thereafter, the case proceeded and the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial by means of judgment and order dated 7.12.2001 in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1997. The petitioner has also brought on record the letter dated 24.2.1993, by means of which the petitioner has been permitted to join on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court dated 22.1.1993. The petitioner had been working all along on the post in question, but on the basic salary. The other person, whose services have been terminated, has filed claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and the claim petition of Arun Kumar Pandey was allowed and he was reinstated in service by means of judgment and order dated 4.7.1995. The petitioner based his claim on the basis of the aforesaid facts.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been working all throughout from 24.2.1993 and after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages as the charge against the petitioner of forged appointment letter was not established in trial. He also submits that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in his statement has admitted that the mistake was committed by him while sending the compliance report to the Consolidation Commissioner and on account of that the entire trouble arose. Fie, therefore, submits that neither the petitioner was at fault nor the appointment letter was forged in any manner and once the Criminal Court adjudicated upon the matter on merit after taking the evidence on record and considering the same, there is no occasion to continue the termination order any further. The petitioner''s co-appointees were allowed to continue and one co-appointee, Arun Kumar Pandey filed claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and his claim petition has been allowed by the Tribunal.

The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has submitted that the appointment letter of the petitioner was found to be forged and, therefore, his services were terminated.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was permitted to join by means of order dated 24.2.1993 in pursuance to the interim order dated 22.1.1993. The petitioner has been discharging his duties since then. On 28.11.2006 the petitioner expired. The heirs of the petitioner have been brought on record. It is necessary that the validity of the termination order may be adjudicated upon. The petitioner was appointed in pursuance to the appointment letter issued by the Consolidation Commissioner along with 8 other persons. All the persons joined.

The Settlement Officer, Consolidation while sending the compliance report and joining of the petitioner committed mistake and instead of mentioning dispatch number and the date correctly he committed mistake and in place of 9189/E-1410/89 he understood it as 8189/E-14.10.89 and he missed out the latter portion of the letter where the date has been mentioned as 14.12.89. When the compliance report was sent to the! Consolidation Commissioner it was informed that no such letter was issued by the said Office and on that basis criminal proceedings were directed to be drawn against the petitioner. The petitioner was made to suffer on account of the above mistake of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and his services were terminated, although services of the said persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner, were continued except one person, Arun Kumar Pandey, who filed a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and his claim petition has been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 4.7.1995. The petitioner has never been at fault and neither his appointment letter was forged in. any manner and the Criminal Court has also, recorded a finding to the effect that the appointment letter was valid and no forgery was made out in respect thereof. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has also admitted in his statement in the Court that it was a clerical mistake committed by him on account of which wrong dispatch number and date have been mentioned in the compliance report sent by him. The petitioner had been working since all this time, but on the basic salary. The petitioner had been made to suffer on account of negligent and callous attitude of the opposite parties. There was no fault nor any short coming or forgery in the appointment of the petitioner, but in spite of that the, petitioner had been languishing and suffering on account of the mistake of the opposite parties. The termination order considering the above facts cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the termination order dated 9.3.1990. The petitioner would be entitled to all the back wages including the revised scale from the date of his appointment. This judgment and order shall be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of five months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. The retiral dues of the petitioner shall also be released to the heirs of the petitioner within the aforesaid period.