- (1.)Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Y.K. Mishra learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Saurabh Lawaniya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of dismissal from service dated 12.10.2009 passed by Nideshak, Homoeopathy, U.P. Lucknow, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the directive issued by the High Court in writ petition No. 5454 (SS) of 2001, while quashing the termination order dated 11.9.2001 to pass a fresh order after giving proper show cause notice containing full details and adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order of dismissal has been passed without holding any enquiry. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after taking note of the fact that the appellant was issued charge-sheet to which reply was submitted by the appellant and after considering the reply the order impugned has been passed. After perusing the record, the learned Single Judge made an observation that the appellant had procured appointment on the basis of forged letter and he could not prove the authenticity of the appointment letter issued in his favour from any of the documents and further the documents, which were supplied to him he could not deny the same. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that from the perusal of the pleadings, it reveals that the appellant procured appointment on the basis of forged letter, hence this Court has no sympathy against such unscrupulous person.
(2.)Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to mention the plea of the appellant that the State Government in the instant case on 30.1.2004 issued a letter to the Director, Homoeopathy, saying that all such dismissal orders passed against the pharmacists including the appellant should be withdrawn and fresh orders be passed after affording opportunity of hearing as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution but despite the aforesaid directive, the impugned order has been passed without following the said procedure.
(3.)The impugned order also recites that the opportunity has been afforded to the appellant as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution but factually the aforesaid statement of fact made in the impugned order is not borne out from the record.