Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3792 of 2001 (Old No. 35722 of 1996). Pratap Singh Jeena S/o Bir Singh, R/o Dhaulcheena, District- Almora. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1.Forest Ranger Officer East, Jageshwar Range, Panuanaula, District Almora. 2.Divisional Forest Officer, East Almora, District-Almora. 3.Conservator of Forest, Kumaon Circle, District- Nainital. 4. The State of Uttar Pardesh through Secretary to the Forest Department. ………… Respondents. Sri G.S Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date: March 24, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 10.06.1996 passed by respondent No.1, contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Labourer in Jageshwar Range in the year 1973. Thereafter being senior most labourer the petitioner was promoted temporarily on the post of Work Charge Range Moharrir by the Forest Range Officer Under the orders of Divisional Forest Officer on 06.09.1980. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his services stood regularized and were deemed to be regularized under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Services Commission) Rules, 1979. The petitioner was served termination order on 10.06.1996 on the ground that he has been performing his duty carelessly. On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that he always acted diligently and efficiently and prior to this the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 never complained about any alleged carelessness of the petitioner. 3. On perusal of the record it reveals that the termination order has been passed without holding any inquiry and without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order itself is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Such a long service i.e. about 23 years can not be terminated without holding any inquiry for the charges, if any, levelled against him and without giving any opportunity of hearing. 4. While admitting the writ petition on 08.11.1996 this Court passed the following order on the stay application of petitioner: - “Issue notices, In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 10.06.1996 shall remain stayed.” 5. Further the allegation of carelessness cannot be a ground to terminate the services of the petitioner without applying proper procedure. Therefore, the impugned older cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. The petition is disposed of in terms of interim order dated 08.11.1996. (P.C.Verma,J.) 24.03.2008 P.Singh