KM USHA KHARE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the appellant is that the impugned order dated 19.3.1991 whereby her services were terminated is penal in nature inasmuch as she was terminated on account of the allegation constituting misconduct and, therefore, before passing said order she ought to have been given opportunity of hearing which was not afforded to her and the Hon'ble single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter and dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that she being a temporary employee has no right to hold the post.

(2.) SRI Pankaj Rai, learned standing counsel argued initially that from the averments made in the counter-affidavit it appears that the appellant was afforded opportunity to show cause before passing the impugned order and, therefore, by order dated 15.9.2008 he was directed to produce the record showing as to whether the appellant was given opportunity or not. He has received the original record and after perusing the same he himself made the statement at the Bar that from the record it appears that neither any show cause notice was given nor any opportunity was afforded before passing the impugned order of termination. It is well-settled that even a temporary employee if sought to be terminated with stigma or the termination order is founded on misconduct casting stigma and is penal in nature, an opportunity before termination is necessary.

(3.) IN Abhijit Gupta v. S. N. B. National Centre, Basic Sciences and others, AIR 2006 SC 3471 : 2006 (3) AWC 2272 (SC), the Apex Court said :