- (1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench, made on September 12, 1996 in LPA No. 215/1979 by the Delhi High Court. While the respondent was working as a Cash Clerk in Delhi Milk Scheme, temporary mis-appropriation of the funds on more than one occasion was discovered. When misappropriation of Rs. 17,744.91 on April 2, 1972 was reported, a prosecution was laid against the respondent. While the prosecution was pending, orders were passed by the competent authority on April 24, 1972 as under: "In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri B. L. Sidhana, Cash Clerk (under suspension), Delhi Milk Scheme and direct that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) was drawing them immediately before the date on which he was placed under suspension."
(3.) The respondent was acquitted of the charge in the criminal case and therefore, he filed a writ petition. In his order, the learned single Judge held thus: "The petition of a Cash Clerk is one of confidence and responsibility. Even if the incidents averred against the petitioner were not proved, they were such, as to lead a prudent employer to terminate the services of the employee on the ground of his, not being desirable. The order of termination was passed, as noticed above, one year after the criminal case had started and two years after the enquiry. The enquiry appears not to have been completed, so, no definite opinion had been arrived as with regard to the guilt of the petitioner. No evil consequences were visited on the petition as a result of the order of termination. Nor has any stigma been attached. No penalties were inflicted on the petitioner despite the enquiries, and the start of the criminal case. In the circumstances the order of termination simpliciter is valid. Since the order is innocuous, there is no need to peer behind it, unless mala fides had been established." ;