Chandra Deo Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4282 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8527/1999)
Petitioner: Chandra Deo Gautam
Respondent: State of U.P. and Others.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4282 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8527/1999)
Judges: V.N.KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAW
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Appointment on temporary basis – Termination – If is a removal. Held that it is termination simplicitor and does not cast any stigma. Hence, no merits. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was appointed as a General Manager in the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. on temporary basis. Subsequently, by an order, dated 4.2.1985, his services were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and was successful in obtaining an interim order, as a result of which he continued in service. Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing and the High Court found that there was no illegality in the order terminating the services of the appellant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Against the said decision, the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that, in fact, the order of termination is an order of removal without giving an opportunity to show cause and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. We find no merit in this contention. The order of termination does not cast any stigma and, moreover, the decision referred to in the order of termination also does not cast any stigma. The impugned order is an order of simplicitor termination and not an order of removal. Under such circumstances, the appellant was not entitled to any opportunity of show cause. The appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was appointed as a General Manager in the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. on temporary basis. Subsequently, by an order, dated 4.2.1985, his services were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and was successful in obtaining an interim order, as a result of which he continued in service. Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing and the High Court found that there was no illegality in the order terminating the services of the appellant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Against the said decision, the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that, in fact, the order of termination is an order of removal without giving an opportunity to show cause and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. We find no merit in this contention. The order of termination does not cast any stigma and, moreover, the decision referred to in the order of termination also does not cast any stigma. The impugned order is an order of simplicitor termination and not an order of removal. Under such circumstances, the appellant was not entitled to any opportunity of show cause. The appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
