B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed Assistant Munim in the Karwi Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Karwi, by an order of the Chairman dated September 24, 1969. The appointment was approved by the Committee of Management of the Society. On August 15,1971, the petitioner was referred to join the training held at the Co operative Supervisors Training Centre, Bilari, district Moradabad. The training as completed on May 1, 1972, where after he w as duly relieved. For the period September 1, 19/1 to 30th on April, 1972, he remained in training. On the completion of the period of probation, according to the petitioner, he stood confirmed automatically against the post of Munim in the Society. By an order dated 10-1-1978 passed by the Administrator of the Co-operative Society mentioned above, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Aggrieved against this termination of service, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since he stood automatically confirmed on the completion of the period of probation, there could be no termination of his service without an opportunity to show cause having been given or an enquiry against him upon the charges, if any, being duly conducted. No such notice, it is pointed out, came to be given to the petitioner at any stage nor was any enquiry held. No counter affidavit has been field for the respondents and in view of this the factual averments contained in the petition remained uncontroverted In paragraph 10 of the petition, it would appear.it was asserted in definite terms that the petitioner was automatically confirmed on the post of the minim in the Society after completion of the period of probation. In view of the petitioner being thus shown to be a confirmed employee of the society, it does not seem that his services could be terminated by the Administrator without recourse to enquiry against him or a notice to show cause, if any.
(3.) For the respondents the learned Standing Counsel urged that the Administrator, respondent No. 2, is no longer functioning. This may not be said to make any difference. The reason is that the order was passed by the Administrator representing the committee of management. He was virtually the committee of management when the order came to be made and, therefore, even if the Administrator has now been replaced by a committee of management duly elected, the petition does not fail on that account. Moreover, the Co-operative Society is also arrayed as respondent No. 3, in this case. For the reasons given above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Administrator, respondent No. 2, dated 10-7-1978 is set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.;