MANJU SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. C. Verma, J. Heard Sri Pulak Agarwal and Sri Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of In dia/respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 18. 07. 1994 on ad-hoc basis on temporary post of Assistant Teacher and her services were extended for further periods. Her serv ices were terminated by the impugned or der dated 01. 10. 1997, contained in annexure No. 15 to the writ petition. THE ground of challenge is that she was not given any notice and opportunity of hear ing though the charge of misconduct and indiscipline was the basis of termination order. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases, page 691 the Apex Court has held that the appointing authority may take a lenient view and may drop the dis ciplinary proceedings and pass the order of termination. Here the termination or der is simpliciter. THErefore, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another ver sus Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) the im pugned order of termination cannot be said illegal.