ATTAR SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's service was dispensed with in exercise of Rule 56 of Financial hand Book Vol.-II Part-II by an order dated 20th July, 1990 containing in Annexure-I to the writ petition. Mr. A.R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that by reason of the Govt. order dated 21st December, 1989, such dispensation of service could be made under the said rule only in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. According to him, it could be done only after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner. In the present case, according to him no such approval has been obtained.

(2.) Mr. P.K. Singhal appearing with Mr. Murlidhar learned counsel for the respondents oppose Mr. Dubey. According to Mr. Murlidhar, there is nothing on record to show that the prior approval of the Commissioner was obtained. But however, according to him, the Government Order is not mandatory and therefore, no observance thereof cannot vitiate the impugned order. He further contends that because of the time limit of 25 days for completion of the process and absence of approval of the Commissioner within the stipulated time period shall be deemed to be the grant of the approval. He further contends that consideration is dependent on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority and to the suitability of the employee to be retained in service. Here the appointing authority having found it fit to dispense with the service, the Court should not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction since the petitioner has not alleged malafide against the appointing authority. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard both the counsel at length.