AJAYA MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks issuance of a writ quashing the order of termination of his service passed by the Deputy Accountant General (Administration), Orissa.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a temporary upper division clerk in the Office of the Accountant General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar on 9 -2 -1973. His service was terminated by the order in Annexure in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. On 27 -5 -1974 he submitted a representation to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi which as rejected on 9 -12 -1971 vide Annexure -3. Then he filed a writ application in O.J.C. No. 712 of 1975 for quashing the order of termination on the ground that he was not paid his salary forthwith along with the order of termination in accordance with Rule 5 of the said Rules, but subsequently he withdrew that writ application. His main contentions in the present writ application are (1) that the order of termination of service is violative of the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because persons junior to him have been retained in service while his service was termination; (2) that the order has been passed as a punitive measure without drawing up a formal disciplinary proceeding against him and (3) that the order has been passed mala fide.

(3.) THE allegation of mala fide is very vague. There is no specific allegation that the opposite parties were prompted by any ulterio motive or that they passed the impugned order to feed fat any grudge against the Petitioner. A discriminatory order is not necessarily mala fide. A heavy burden lies on the person who alleges mala fide and in our opinion the Petitioner has failed to discharge the same.