- (1.) Delay condoned, leave granted.
(2.) This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in W.P. No. 7524/88,dated November 27,1992. The respondent was temporarily appointed as Assistant Project Officer by the proceedings dated May 20, 1980. The order of appointment recites that she was appointed to an ex-cadre temporary post of Asstt. Project Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1950 by direct recruitment through Departmental Selection Committee under National Adult Education Scheme, The appointment order also shows that her appointment is a temporary one from the date of the joining the duty and it would be terminated "at any time by giving one month's notice or one month's pay". The superior officers have reported on two occasions, first on April 21, 1982 and secondly on May 18, 1982 informing the competent authority of the unsatisfactory work of the respondent. In consequence, by order dated June 8, 1982, exercising the power under Termination of Services U.P. Govt. Temporary Govt. Services Rules, the service of the respondent was terminated giving one month pay and allowances in lieu of one month's notice. Challenging the order, the respondent filed a representation before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of respondent with all consequential benefits with liberty to the appellant to conduct an inquiry, if they so desire, in accordance with rules.
(3.) It is contended for the Government that two modes of exercise of power are available to the Govt., namely, that if the Govt. are of the view that the acts complained of are misconduct, it would be open to the Govt. to conduct an inquiry, after giving reasonable opportunity to the delinquent and then to take action according to law; alternatively, if the competent authority, in terms of the order of appointment or as per rules takes an action, it would be in accordance with the terms of appointment or the rules and in that event, the need to conduct an inquiry does not arise. In support thereof, Sri Sehgal, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. V. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691 : (1991 AIR SCW 793) in which self-same rules were interpreted.;