UJAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ujagar Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and propriety of the order, dated 26th July, 1971, copy Annexure 'H' to the petition, terminating his service with immediate effect.

(2.) Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged before me that according to the terms and conditions of re-employment of the petitioner, he was entitled to one month's notice in writing or payment of one month's salary and allowances before his services could be terminated; that under the impugned order the services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect; that it was legally incumbent on the authorities to have paid one month's salary and allowances along with the order of termination and that as one month's salary in lieu of the notice was not tendered, the order of termination of service of the petitioner is illegal and void. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Senior Superintendent, R.M.S. Cochin and another v. K.V. Gopinath, Sorter, 1972 AIR(SC) 1487

(3.) The above mentioned contention of the learned counsel has been advanced on the basis of the pleas that were allowed to be taken by way of amendment, because in the original writ petition the only ground taken for the quashing of the impugned order was that the same had been passed mala fide. The specific pleas taken in the amended petition read as under :-