BHANWAR LAL ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in the respondent Jaisalmer Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Jaisalmer by taking a resolution in the meeting dated 25th Oct., 1986, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex. 1. In this meeting 7 persons were given appointment on different posts and petitioner was given appointment on the post of Supervisor by specifically mentioning the post as non-cadre post. All the 7 persons were given appointment on probation for two years as well as on the condition that they may continue on the post till their requirement is there or till regularly selected candidates are made available. The petitioner since then is working on the said post and on 24th May, 2007 the impugned order was passed by which the petitioner has been removed from service by ordering that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The petitioner is aggrieved against this order Annex. 2 dated 24th May, 2007.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 24th May, 2007 is absolutely illegal and void-ab-initio as has been passed in violation to the principles of nature justice as the order has been passed without holding any inquiry and without holding the petitioner guilty and further more without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted that order dated 24th May, 2007 in itself is an order of a different, nature which does not fall in any of the category that whether petitioner has been removed from service because of the abolition of post or he has been removed for any criminal charges or he has been removed for remaining in jail for some period during service tenure or he has been retired compulsorily, which is apparent from the order as the petitioner has been given full retiral benefits, which can be done when employee is retired compulsorily. It is submitted that it is difficult to find out which reason prevailed over the authority concerned which has removed the petitioner from service. It is submitted that all actions taken against the petitioner vide order dated 24th May, 2007 is out come to malafide which is apparent from the order itself.