DEVINDRA KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner calls in question the order dtd. 25/6/2010 (Annexure P-1) by which his services on the post of Assistant Grade III on contract basis has been terminated finding him guilty of misconduct.

(3.) Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner was working on contractual basis since long, but he was served with show-cause notice dtd. 22/6/2010 (Annexure P-7) alleging misconduct and irregularity in performance of the duty which he has replied and ultimately, by order dtd. 25/6/2010 (Annexure P-1) his services have been terminated w.e.f. 24/7/2010, as such, the order is stigmatic and not simpliciter. Such an order has been passed without holding an enquiry, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, 2001(3)MPLJ 616.