NARASIMHA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was employed in the Office of the Superintendent of Police on a temporary basis as a Sweeper, by an order dated 7-9-1977. At an earlier point of time his services came to be terminated Petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1487/1983 challenging the termination. His contentions were upheld by this Court and the termination order was set aside by this Court by which the impugned orders' therein, Annexures-C and E filed in the said Writ Petition were quashed. He was given all the consequential benefits in regard to salary etc., The Court also directed that the Respondents shall have the liberty either to hold a disciplinary enquiry or to terminate the services of the Petitioner * W.P. No- 13207 of 1984 Dated 13th August 1984. in accordance with the rules, if in Jaw the Petitioner's services could he terminated on simple notice.

(2.) The Department came to accept the judgment. He was reinstated in service but soon suspended pending enquiry. No enquiry was held for a period of six months. The Petitioner was reinstated to do duty. Thereafter on 11-7-1984 the Petitioner was issued a notice intimating that his service was terminated as there was no need for his further work.

(3.) Aggrieved by that notice served on the Petitioner on 27-7-1984, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief, inter alia, contending that the notice is not notice simpliciter terminating his service but one essentially resorted to in order to punish the Petitioner for the alleged misconduct for which no enquiry was held. Therefore, the prayer that the impugned notice must be quashed as being without the authority of law.