RAJU DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner is seeking the relief of quashment of orders (Annexure A-1 and A-4), dated 9-8-1994 and 5-8-1994 respectively. By these orders, the services of the petitioner has been directed to be terminated with effect from 9-9-1994. It be seen that the impugned orders (Annexures A-1 and A-4 were stayed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 8-9-1994 and the said stay order is still continuing. In the return it has been submitted that a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner but on receiving the reply and after making preliminary enquiry by the respondents, the petitioner's conduct was found not suitable for being retained in the service of police department. It has also been pleaded that looking to the graveness of the complaint against the petitioner his services were terminated after giving one month's notice to him. At this juncture, Annexure A-4 which is a show-cause notice issued by Superintendent of Police to petitioner is also seen. In the said notice the punishment was proposed to stop one annual increment. While the punishment which has been accorded is the termination from service. Shri Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. J. Krishnamurthy, (1997) 11 SCC 467.

(2.) ON going through the return, it is revealed that though the services of petitioner were purely on temporary basis but the termination order is found to be stigmatic in nature on going through the averments made in the return. No departmental enquiry was conducted and after receiving the reply to show-cause notice, the punishment which was proposed was to withhold one annual increment. However, ultimate order to terminate the services has been passed. In this view of the matter in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J. Krishnamurthy (supra), the impugned order (Annexure A-1) can no be allowed to remain stand, since the order is stigmatic in nature. The respondents are directed to proceed further in accordance to show-cause notice issued to petitioner vide Annexure A-4, dated 5-8-1994.

(3.) RESULTANTLY, Annexure A-1 stands quashed and the petition is allowed to the extent indicated here in above without any order as to costs.