UDAI SHANKAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 1st June, 1984 (Annexure'5'to the writ petition) whereby his services have been terminated.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Secretary in the U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Ghazipur, by way of direct recruitment as envisaged by Rule 25 of the U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Rules, 1976 (briefly 'the Rules, 1976) by a Selection Committee as constituted under the Rules and then he joined on 27-8-1979 and his services were terminated by simpliciter termination order on 1-6-1984. The contention of the petitioner is that under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1976, he was appointed on probation of a period of two years, which could be extended by the District Committee for a further period of six months. It is stated that his performance was quite satisfactory during the period of probation and, therefore, no action was taken against bis during that period. His performance being excellent during the probationary period, the petitioner contends that he will be deemed to have been confirmed immediately after the expiry of the probationary period, which in this case may at best be taken at two and half years including the extended period of probation. He having been confirmed by implication upon the expiry of the probationary period, it is contended that his discharge simpliciter by the order dated 1-6-1984 (Annexure '5' to the writ petition) is null and void, inasmuch as services of a confirmed employee cannot be terminated by discharge simpliciter order, without holding an enquiry. It is, therefore, prayed that the discharge simpliciter order be quashed. Also it is contended that the respondent No. 3 with a sinister motive prepared a list of certain candidates, whom he wanted to appoint and, therefore, he passed the impugned illegal order to make a room for the persons of his choice, from whom he took illegal gratification.

(3.) It is importantly noted that no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents and, therefore, the case is to be seen on the basis of the aforesaid Rules and un-controverted facts.