(1.) Pleadings are complete. Since, there was an interim order granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondents moved an application for vacating the said interim order and in the opinion of this Court instead of deciding the said application, looking to the nature of the case, it is advised that the matter be finally heard. Learned counsel for the parties have given their consent to argue it finally, accordingly, it is finally heard.
(2.) This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the order dtd. 21/2/2024 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.2 terminating the services of petitioner with immediate effect and was also relieved from the said assignment. Petitioner challenged the same mainly on the ground that he was appointed in the year 1998 by a competent authority and his appointment was against the sanctioned vacant post and as such after almost 25 years of service, termination of his services is not proper that too without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and without providing him any proper opportunity of hearing.
(3.) Respondents have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the existing facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment of the petitioner was illegal from very inception and as such no regular departmental enquiry was required. According to the respondents, whatever procedure followed by them to ascertain whether petitioner's services can be terminated or not, is proper and sufficient to take the decision as has been taken by the respondent No.2 issuing order impugned terminating services of the petitioner. According to the respondents, in the present case there was no requirement to follow the principle of natural justice and to conduct any regular enquiry.