Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 111 OF 2004 (Old No. 6451 of 1999) Sri Ananti Prasad Joshi …………….. Petitioner Versus State of U.P. through its Secretary, Udyan Evam Khand Prasanskaran U.P. (Hill) Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others. …………… Respondents. …………………. Sri N.S.Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Date: Aug. 29,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.12.1999 passed by respondent No.3, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, and further to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner without any break. 2. The petitioner was working in the India Italian Fruit Development Project as daily wager since 1986 till he was regularly appointed as Mali on 30.04.1998. The respondent No.1 had issued experience certificate to him on 06.04.1991 and 07.12.1993. The petitioner completed on-year-training of Mali sponsored and conducted by respondent No.2 and the petitioner was awarded 2 certificate of Mali on 23.07.1997 on successful completion of training. The respondent No.3 informed the petitioner on 15.04.1998 that the Regional Project Officer Dehradun had forwarded his name in the list of appointment for the post of Mali and he was required to appear for interview on 29.04.1999. The petitioner appeared before the interview board on 29.04.1998 and the respondent No.3 selected him against a vacant permanent post of Mali in the department. The respondent No.3 issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 30.04.1999 and directed him to join within 15 days. The petitioner joined on the post of Mali on 02.05.1998 and also completed all the formalities as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order dated 01.12.1999 without any cause or reason. 3. The petitioner is continuously working from the date of his initial appointment since the operation of the impugned order has been stayed by this Court by an interim order dated 17.12.1999 which is reproduced as under:- “Notices on behalf of opposite parties 1 & 2 have been accepted by learned Standing counsel. Issue notice to opposite party No.3 returnable within three weeks. List thereafter. In the meantime, termination order, contained in annexure No.1 dated 1.12.1999, is stayed.” 4. The facts of the case are not disputed. It is also clear from the record that the impugned order is punitive and has been issued under the instruction of respondent 3 Nos. 1 & 2 without disclosing the reasons and notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the termination order and the provisions of Article 14 & 16 have been violated. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the impugned order of termination deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 01.12.199 terminating the services of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Since this Court has already stayed the termination and the petitioner is working in terms of interim order, no separate order is required. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 29.08.2008 P.Singh