(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure A-3 (a), dated 17-5-84, terminating his service by issuing one month's notice. The appeal / representation submitted against such order has also been rejected vide order annexure A-1 (a), dated 17-8-98 and communicated on 28-8-98, vide Annexure a-2. However, this petition was filed before the M. P. State Administrative tribunal; on its abolition the case is relegated to this Court for final adjudication and renumbered as W. P. No. 6189/03.
(2.) IT is the case of petitioner that he was appointed as Revenue inspector on probation through direct recruitment vide order dated 22-6-82 annexure A-5. The appointment was in the regular scale of pay Rs. 195-5-240-6-252-EB-6-270-10-330/ -. As per the terms of appointment, petitioner was required to undergo training and to qualify the departmental examinations. He is required to submit a bond of surety amount Rs. 2,000/-, to serve the department upto three years, on completion of training. It is also mentioned in the order that on failure to serve upto three years, it is incumbent on his to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,000/- in Treasury.
(3.) DUE to pre requisite conditions, petitioner was sent for training, which he has successfully completed, as apparent from the certificate of relieving Annexure A-6, dated 20-6-83. One rejoining his duties by 22-6-83 in the Office of Assistant Settlement Officer, Khandwa (M. P.), work was assigned to him. It is further his case, that the Settlement Officer, Khandwa was in occupation to threaten him of dire consequences, including removal from job; on account of non-fulfillment his undue demands, at the time of receiving the payment of salary. It is further stated in the petition that during the period of probation respondents have never asked for any explanation or issued any memo for unsatisfactory discharge of his duties. It is stated that during the period of service, he has performed his duties with utmost care, zeal, ability, faithfully and hard work. However, it cannot be said that his performance was not satisfactory at any point of time during the period of probation. Even the settlement Officer has not issued any memo to him to repose dissatisfaction of his work.