(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 4th April, 1997 passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner under proviso to sub rule 1 of rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rule, 1965 and holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
(2.) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the petitioner had been appointed as Safaiwala since 1982 at Goa Sadan, New delhi. The petitioner contended that he is working since 1982 though he was issued an appointment letter only on 1st February, 1984 formally appointing him against the permanent post created by order dated 25th September, 1981.
(3.) THE petitioner asserted that on account of mis-management and carelessness of the concerned officials including respondent no. 3 at Goa Sadan, the services of the canteen had deteriorated substantially causing serious hardships to the petitioner and other employees entailing complaints being made by the petitioner and other employees against the mis-management. In one of such complaints in which the petitioner was also a signatory, a request was made to respondent No. 2, Resident Commissioner, to handover the canteen to an appropriate person. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of taking corrective measures to improve the services in the canteen, the signatories of the letter dated 1st March, 1992 were threatened with dismissal. The petitioner also pleaded that he was humiliated by one section of Goa Sadan official on one pretext or the other regularly. According to the petitioner, the officials of the Goa Sadan were unhappy because of the outspoken nature of the petitioner and his courage to speak against the mis-management and mis-conduct of officials at Goa Sadan, New Delhi.