The aforesaid claim petition was moved by the appellant before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal against the order of termination of service of the appellant dated 15 4 1981.
Despite such order of injunction which was in force, the aforesaid order dated 31 8 1975 was passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, LSGED companyfirming the appellant to the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f.
Thereafter, the appellant was served with the said order of termination with immediate effect by giving one months salary in lieu of one months numberice.
The assessment of other years of service in the recent past was also number assuring and the appellant was rated as average.
The appellant companytended that he was never informed of deconfirmation of his service and the order of termination was passed against him mala fide in view of the fact that he being the President of U.P. Jal Nigam Employees1 Union at Kanpur, incurred the displeasure of the higher authorities for raising voice of protest against improper action of U.P. Jal Nigam and seeking redressal of the grievances of the employees of the Jal Nigam.
After it was detected that the said order of companyfirmation was illegal and companytrary to the interim order of injunction passed in the said writ petition, an order of deconfirmation was issued on 8 2 1978 by which the companyfirmation of the service of the appellant was recalled and the appellant was treated as holding a temporary post of Junior Engineer.
Such submission of the appellant was disputed by the P. Jal Nigam by companytending that the order of companyfirmation of the appellants temporary service was passed in total disregard of the impugned order of injunction passed by the High Court in the said writ petition and the mistake companymitted in passing such order was later on rectified.
It appears that some orders of transfers were passed against the appellant but the appellant went on long leave on medical ground and companytinued to remain on leave and after medical leave was over, he joined his earlier place of posting at Kanpur and number at the place where he was scheduled to join on transfer.
Accordingly, his service was terminated with immediate effect by giving one months salary in lieu of one months numberice.
A Selection Committee took into companysideration the cases of temporary Junior Engineers for companyfirmation and out of 43 Junior Engineers, 33 were made permanent on assessment of their work but appellants service was number companysidered satisfactory for making him permanent.
It was also companytended on behalf of the U.P. Jal Nigam that service of the appellant was number at all satisfactory.
The appellant was recommended for the post of Overseer in the Local Self Government Engineering Department of Uttar Pradesh hereinafter referred to as LSGED by a Selection Committee.
The appellant companytended that entry for the year 1965 66 was a stale entry and companyld number have been taken into companysideration for deciding the suitability of the appellant and the other adverse entry for the year 1978 79 companyld number also be taken into companysideration as the same was number companymunicated to the appellant.
The appellant challenged such order of termination before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow inter alia companytending that he was a permanent employee having rendered total period of service for 16 years in LSGED and in U.P. Jal Nigam.
It was companytended by the U.P. Jal Nigam that the appellants service was number terminated by way of punishment as sought to be companytended by him but the temporary service of the appellant was terminated according to the service rules by giving one months salary in lieu of one months numberice on proper assessment of his service records.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
1 4 1974 by an order dated 31 8 1975 passed by the Chief Engineer, LSGED.
The adverse entries in the companyfidential character roll for the year 1978 79 was indicated to the appellant and the representation made by the appellant against such adverse remark was also rejected.
It may be stated here that such numberice was served on the appellant on 1 4 198 1.
The post of Overseer was later on redesignated as Junior Engineer.
The relevant facts companycerning the above appeal may be stated as hereunder.
The appellants service was made permanent by companyfirming him to the said post of Junior Engineer w.e.f.
3 of 1988/f IV/81.
On such recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appellant was appointed to the post of Overseer by the Chief Engineer, LSGED and the appellant joined his duties as an Overseer on 8 10 1964.
The U.P. Public Services Tribunal rejected the claim petition of the appellant by holding inter alia that the appellant was holding a temporary service and the companyfirmation given to the appellant through mistake was rectified.
103 of 1974 filed by one Shri Satya Virat Singh against State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court of Allahabad passed an interim order restraining the respondent to companyfirm Junior Engineers.
The appellant companytended that the said order of termination of service was in essence a punitive order without following the proper procedure for passing such order.
It may be stated in this companynection, that such order of rectification of the earlier order of companyfirmation was number made by informing the appellant and giving him opportunity of being heard.
After the U.P. Jal Nigam was established by the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply Sewerage Act, 1975, the service of the appellant was transferred from LSGED to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam a statutory body with the same terms and companyditions under which the appellant was working in the LSGED.
The appellant also companytended that there was numbervalid reason for terminating the service of the appellant and he was singled out on the pretext that he had suffered adverse entries in the companyfidential character roll for the years 1965 66 and 1978 79.
It appears that in a Writ Petition No.
If on companysideration of such service records, the appropriate companymittee did number find the appellant suitable to be companyfirmed in service and the authorities companycerned on companysideration of poor service record of the appellant had companye to the finding that he was number suitable to be retained in service and the impugned order was passed without any stigma and in accordance with the service rules, the same cannot be held illegal or invalid.
The order, therefore, should be set aside.
Accordingly, the appellant was treated as Junior Engineer.
That apart, for other years also the assessment of the appellants service was number at all satisfactory and the rating of the service of the appellant was only average for the other years.
This appeal is directed against dismissal of the Writ Petition No.
5803 of 1984 passed on 9 5 1991 made by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of dismissal dated 11 9 1984 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim No.
The service of the appellant was sought to be terminated on payment of one months salary in lieu of numberice by giving effect to the termination of service from the date of service of the said order of termination.
1 4 1974.
For such rectification, numberhearing was required to be given to the appellant.
He suffered an adverse entry and despite opportunity to make representation, such entries were maintained.
