- (1.) Petitioner challenges the order of termination passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 7-4-1978 and also order of Respondent No. 4 dated 29-11-1990.
(2.) It is submitted by the Petitioner that he was initially appointed in 1973 as a clerk by the Respondents and thereafter to the post of Auctioner in December 1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-320. Petitioner is said to have been involved in a criminal caseron 6-4-1978. He was arrested by the police. However he was released on bail on 8-4-1978. The report of FIR lodged against the Petitioner was sent by the Secretary to the President and it was recommended that the Petitioner be placed under suspension. On receipt of this report the City Magistrate who is said to be the appointing authority directed termination of the petitioner's services by giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. Petitioner also submits that he was appointed by the Secretary and he could not be removed from service by the City Magistrate. Petitioner's involvement in the criminal case has not proved his misconduct unless criminal Court finds him guilty.
(3.) Petitioner challenges the order of termination on the ground that his termination could not be ordered unless he was found guilty by the Court. He has not been given any show cause notice against the order of punishment, therefore, also order is bad.;