GIANI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perusal of the impugned order dtd. 30/10/1996 (Annexure P-2) does not reflect as to what transpired in the mind of disciplinary authority while terminating the services of petitioner. No reason, whatsoever, other than merely citing that in view of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, the services of petitioner are being terminated. The order is not only vague, but is also arbitrary, unreasonable and as cryptic as it can be.

(2.) In similar circumstances, this Court in a case titled as "Dr. P.K.Mittal v. State of Punjab and others, 1982 (2) SLR 267, has observed that unless the punishment order speaks for itself, the mere fact that the same is tried to be extended or rationalize pleadings before this Court could not make it sustainable in the eyes of law. His Lordship M.M. Punchhi, J. (as he then was) speaking for this Court observed as below :

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on this short ground alone.