Gomti Prasad Verma vs State of U.P.& Another

K. N. Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin vide order dated 28th October, 1976 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Kaiserganj, who was the appointing authority. The petitioner''s services hare been terminated by the impugned order dated 21st June, 1979 passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Nath, urged that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as the Collector is not the appointing authority, and, as such, he could not exercise jurisdiction in passing the order of termination. In reply learned standing counsel urged that since the Collector is over all incharge of the district administration, and, as such, he could terminate the services of the Collection Amins working in the district although they were appointed by the SubDivisional Officer. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and we find much substance in what has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is well settled that the services of an employee can be terminated only by the appointing authority. In this case, the SubDivisional Officer is the appointing authority and this fact has not been disputed by the opposite parties that the order of appointment was passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Kaiserganj, Bahraich and the Collector has not been delegated the power as appointing authority under Rule 19A of the U.P. Collection Amins Services (Third Amendment) Rules. The Collector, therefore, could not exercise powers in passing the impugned order of termination. In the absence of delegation of power under the aforesaid provisions, the Collector could not assume power for terminating the services of Collection Amins being incharge of the district Administration. The services of an employee could only be terminated by the appointing authority. Thus, in the present case, the order of termination dated 21st June, 1979, contained in Annexure No. 4, passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich, cannot be sustained being without jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order of termination dated 21st June, 1979, contained in Annexure No. 4, passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich is hereby quashed. It is, however, provided that the period from June 21, 1979 till the joining of the petitioner on the post will be treated as period of leave and he will be treated in service during the said period. The question of payment of salary will be considered by the authorities according to Rules.

No order as to costs.

[Petition allowed.]