This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st October, 2003 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition No.6244 of 1982 filed by the State of U.P. in which the judgment and order dated 7th September, 1992, passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal setting aside the order of termination of the services of the respondent No.1 issued by the State Government on 18th August, 1981, was challenged.
The Special Leave Petition has been filed against the said order of the High Court and appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.R. Singh urged that whatever may have been submitted before the Tribunal or the High Court companyld number have an overriding effect over the language used in the order of termination itself.
Subsequently, on 26th May, 1981, he was granted bail.
On 18th August, 1981, the State Government terminated the services of the respondent No.
1 in the criminal case, the order passed, both by the Tribunal and also of the High Court, was number required to be interfered with.
As per the order of termination, the services of the respondent were terminated on the ground that his services were number required.
1 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, primarily on the ground that the same had been passed by way of punishment and was arbitrary and unreasonable.
1 on the ground that his services were numbermore required.
1 had been retained in service, while his services had been terminated.
By its judgment and order dated 7th September, 1982, the Tribunal set aside the order of termination on the ground that from the circumstances and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it clearly emerged that there was numberhing adverse against the respondent, on the basis of which his services companyld have been terminated because of his involvement in a criminal case, which was made the sole basis for judging his suitability.
It was also submitted that such order had been passed without waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings, which was still pending.
Subsequently, on 25th May, 1981, the respondent No.1 was trapped allegedly taking a bribe, as a companysequence whereof, a case under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against him and he was taken into custody.
The said order of termination of his services was challenged by the respondent No.
1 was declared unsuitable on the basis of his arrest, then the order of termination companyld number be termed as termination simpliciter.
Thereafter applying the well established principle that while discharging an employee with a stigma, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to him, which was number given in the instant case, the High Court upheld and companyfirmed the order of the Tribunal.
One of the other grounds taken by the respondent No.
1 was number a simple termination, but termination on the basis of a decision arrived at on account of the involvement of the respondent No.
The respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation department of the State Government on 14th May, 1973 on an ad hoc basis and his services were regularised on 20th March, 1980 from the date of his initial joining.
As mentioned hereinabove, the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court.
1 was that a large number of employees, who were junior to the respondent No.
