Allahabad High Court
Virendra Prasad Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)AWC453
Author: D. K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.
1. By an order dated 10.2.1988 issued by the District Cane Commissioner, Aligarh, services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground that his services were not required any more. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition.
2. In paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the fact that all those appointments which were made during the period from January, 1981 till June. 1983, were irregular appointment and, therefore, the same were directed to be terminated by the Additional Cane Commissioner through his letter dated 4.2.1988. The said exercise was undertaken as a result of the assurance given in the Assembly by the then Minister on the basis of question Nos. 99 and 100 raised therein. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed by the District Cane Officer, Aligarh, whose services were also terminated by the appointing authority.
3. I have heard both Mr. D. K. Singh learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel at length.
4. It appears that the order of termination is a termination simplicitor without assigning any reason, whereas in the counter-affidavit some improvement has been sought to be made to the statement made therein. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on 1.2.1982 and the termination was effected after six years. Since a new case has been made out in the counter-affidavit, even assuming that the grounds are of substance, in that event also it was Incumbent upon the respondents to disclose the full particulars to show as to how the petitioner's appointment was irregular or illegal. There might be cases of Irregular and illegal appointment, but so as to arrive at a conclusion that the particular appointment is Irregular or Illegal, there must be sufficient material to indicate that there has been a proper investigation and enquiry and that there were sufficient materials revealed in the enquiry to come to the conclusion that a particular appointment was illegal or irregular. In the absence of disclosure of such materials, it is not possible to accept the statement made in the counter-affidavit on its face value. When such a stand is taken by the respondent, its burden of proof is on the respondent. Admittedly, such materials ought to have been in the custody of the respondents and. therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to disclose such materials. Non-disclosure of such materials raises a ground for arriving at an adverse presumption as against the respondent.
5. Then again, this order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. There is nothing to show as to how the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was irregular and illegal. It is always open to the respondents to investigate and come to a definite conclusion that certain appointments may or may not be illegal or irregular. If the appointment is Illegal or irregular, such appointments are void and cannot be continued. But then, such a decision which has a grave civil consequence. cannot be passed without holding proper and thorough investigation and after giving opportunity to the person concerned. Since none of these steps have been taken as appears from the counter-affidavit and nothing having been so disclosed by the respondents, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. K. R. Singh in support of the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.
6. Then again, the order which has been passed cannot be supported or improved by reason of any amount of affidavits.
7. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 10.2.1988 contained in Annexure-3 so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Let a writ of certiorari do accordingly issue to the above extent.
8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.