DVR RAVINDER SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Driver (MT) under GREF on 23.3.1993 and claims, as pleaded in para 4 of the writ petition, that he completed his probation successfully. He avers in the same paragraph that during his probation he was not ever communicated 'any adversity of any kind' during his service period; which expression we understand to mean that the petitioner was never communicated any adverse comment pertaining to his working.

(3.) PETITIONER states that since he had become a permanent employee his service could not be terminated without any inquiry. PETITIONER claims that the order dated 15.2.1997 is penal in nature.