Allahabad High Court
Balbir Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65634 of 2008
Petitioner :- Balbir Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67026 of 2008
Petitioner :- Deen Dayal Rajpoot
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Dubey,S. Niranjan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. and
3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1640 of 2009
Petitioner :- Shiv Ratan And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.K.Mishra
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
All the above three writ petitions are decided by a common judgment being arising out of similar facts.
Separate show cause notice dated 22.8.2008 were issued to the petitioners as they participated in a protest on 30/31.5.2008 being on unauthorised absence from duty. The petitioners either have not submitted reply to the show cause notice or their reply were found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, by independent impugned orders dated 23.9.2009, and 17.10.2008, which are under challenge in the present writ petitions, their services were terminated.
WRIT - A No. - 65634 of 2008
Balbir Singh Vs. State of UP and others.
Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner Balbir Singh, submits that wife of the petitioner was seriously ill from 29.5.2008 to 31.5.2008, and he was looking after his wife, therefore he has not participated in the protest. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a medical certificate issued in the name of his wife.
I have perused the said medical certificate. The medical certificate states as under:-
"I, Dr. S. Khan, after careful personal examination hereby clarify that Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav, Age-28 years, W/o Shri Balbir Singh Yadav, whose signature / T.I. is given below is/was suffering from mild fever.
I consider that period / an Extension of absence from duty with effect from 29.5.2008 to 31.5.2008 is/ was absolutely necessary for the restoration of his / her health. "
On basis of the above quoted medical certificate, no benefit could be granted to the petitioner - Balbir Singh, as it has not stated anything about the petitioner whether he was present to take care of his wife or not. The explanation appears to be vague and, therefore, the impugned order whereby services of the petitioner were discontinued, as he participated in protest though to form union or to join protest was not permissible, is upheld.
Accordingly, the writ petition bearing WRIT - A No. - 65634 of 2008 is dismissed.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67026 of 2008
Deen Dayal Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner - Deen Dayal, submits that the petitioner was not well on 30.5.2008 and when he joined duty on 2.6.2008, a senior officer has taken his signature on blank paper. However, the petitioner has failed to place on record any document in support of above contention except a type copy of the medical and fitness certificate, which is annexed as Annexure-7 which is not even supported by true copy of the same. Therefore, the explanation given by petitioner Deen Dayal is also vague. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order, as petitioner had taken part in protest despite to form union or to joint protest was not permissible, hence the writ petition is dismissed.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1640 of 2009
Shiv Ratan And Another Vs. State of UP and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioners namely - Shiv Ratan and Ram Hig fairly submits that the petitioner Ram Hig has admitted that he has participated in the protest. So far as the petitioner Shiv Ratan is concerned, there is no specific averments in the writ petition on which ground he is challenging the order of termination nor any document is annexed in the writ petition in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner Shiv Ratan has also not made out a case for interference by this Court being without his legal right. Petitioner Ram Hhig has accepted his participation in protest despite to form Union was not permitted, therefore no case for interference made out.
Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed.
Interim orders, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
S.K.S.
