GIRRAJ SINGH GURJAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.6.2015, by which the service of the petitioner, who is a probationer, has been dispensed with without giving him any notice as required under rule 12 (a) of Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi- Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a singular contention that neither any notice pay nor any notice has been issued to the petitioner before terminating services of the petitioner, therefore, the order is passed in flagrant violation of the Rules. Learned Deputy Government Advocate was unable to point out from the record that either any notice pay or notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The relevant extract of rule 12(a) of the Rules reads as under:-