HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 271 of 2016 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 25.05.2016, passed in by Writ Petition No.4051 (S/S) of 1992. By the said judgment, writ petition of the petitioner challenging the termination of his services vide order dated 27.05.1992 consequent to an inquiry into three charges against the appellant was dismissed. 3. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the appellant was a daily wager helper in the Godown of the respondent-Corporation and the Go- down Incharge was responsible for the irregularities, if any, but he was made the escapegoat. Counsel has invited our attention to the enquiry report wherein also it has been categorically recorded that no doubt the appellant was merely a helper and it was the duty of the Godown Incharge to maintain the stock and records of the Godown, however, the appellant being an old employee had moral responsibility to inform the higher authorities about the illegalities going on. The appellant's counsel says that the appellant being a helper was unaware about the illegalities going on and was only complying Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Tushar Bahadur, Vijay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shreeprakash Singh, Mrityunjay Pratap Singh Basant Lal .....Appellant(s) U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corp. Ltd. And Anr. .....Respondent(s) with the directions of the Godown Incharge. He submits that the Godown Incharge in fact challenged his dismissal from service before this Court and the writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.8563 (S/S) of 1993 was allowed by Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.08.1995. The said judgment was on the record of the Writ Court but was not seen, although liberty was granted by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition to proceed afresh against the Godown Incharge- Harain Dutt Bhatt, but it is not very clear as to any such proceedings were held or not nor as to whether the said officer was reinstated or not. 4. Be that as it may, another aspect pointed out by the counsel for the appellant is that another helper Ram Narayan who was also working in the Godown alongwith the appellant and was disengaged, albeit orally, was subsequently taken back. 5. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer himself that the responsibility was of the Godown Incharge to maintain the stock and the records and only moral responsibility has been fixed upon the appellant, who happened to be the daily wages helper, we are of the opinion that no misconduct as such is made out against the appellant-petitioner. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. For the reasons noticed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the order of termination of the appellant dated 27.05.1992 is liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. 6. We further clarify that the appellant shall not be visited with any stigma which may have been attached to the order which now stands quashed. However, considering the facts that the appellant was a daily wager and his services were terminated in 1992 now at this stage we cannot possibly order his reinstatement in the respondent-Corporation, but leave it open for the respondent-Corporation to consider as to whether services of the appellant are required in the Corporation, if so to engage him on daily wages, if SPLA No. 271 of 2016 2 otherwise permissible in law. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. October 17, 2025 Anand/- SPLA No. 271 of 2016 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench