Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru' Principal ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 668 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24808 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Manish Chandra Tiwari,A.C.Tiwari,Anil Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at admission stage.

By impugned order, petitioner's services have been dispensed with without disclosing the actual allegation.  A perusal of impugned order reveals that it has been passed mechanically and at no stretch of imagination, the charges were found to be true against the petitioner. While discharging the duty, appointment may be on contractual basis but while passing the order, the authority should have disclosed in the impugned order itself.  The allegation which were found to be correct, may be precisely.  Impugned order seems to be cryptic and the reason assigned therein is not speaking and seems to be based on unfounded fact.

It is trite in law that any order passed affecting the fundamental right or right to livelihood, even on administrative side, order should be speaking disclosing the grounds relied upon for dispensation of service. 

Impugned order dated 8.5.2008 being cryptic and non-speaking is set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made here-in-above.  The petitioner shall be restored in service forthwith on the same terms and conditions on which he was discharging duties.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.  

Order Date :- 23.4.2012

Rizvi