RAJ NARAIN PANDEY Vs. COMMISSIONER UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE peti tioner was appointed as a temporary village level worker in the year 1961. On June 21, 1967. The Additional District Magistrate, Unnao, passed an order ter minating his services on one month's notice. This writ petition is directed against that order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the peti tioner has urged that the impugned order amounts to an order of punishment and as the petitioner has not been afford ed a reasonable opportunity to show cause, the order is hit by Article 311 of the Con stitution. The second point urged in sup port of the petition is that as certain vil lage level workers junior in service to the petitioner have been retained while the petitioner's services have been dispensed with there is an infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution. I find no force in any one of these contentions.

(3.) IN support of his contention that Article 16 of the Constitution has been infringed in the case, learned coun sel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench of this court in the case of Gopal Prasad Singh v. The Dy. Director of Medical and Health Services U. P. 1968 All LJ 735. That decision, in my opinion, does not help the petitioner. On the other hand, it has been observed, in the aforesaid decision, that when the servi ces of a temporary employee are termi nated without assigning any reason, the motive operating in the mind of the au thority is irrelevant. It has been observ ed further in the aforesaid case that: