R. B. Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh learned counsel for the Government of India/respondents. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 22-10-1999 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) terminating the service of the petitioner by giving one month's notice was by way of an order simplicitor.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Messenger-cum-Safaiwala in Army School New Cantt. Allahabad, run by Army Welfare Education Society, on probation for a period of one year which was extended up to 3-2-2000 however by an order simplicitor, the service of the petitioner was terminated. According to the petitioner the impugned termination was passed keeping in view the misconduct of the petitioner as foundation as such the order shall not remain as order simplicitor but by way of stigma and said to have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in derogation to the principle of natural justice and against the provisions of Article 14 as well against article 311 of the Constitution.
(3.) According to the petitioner, if performance of the petitioner was poor and he has still disobeyed and did not serve to the satisfaction of the employer, then for slackness and deficiencies, a proper regular departmental inquiry could have been conducted. Therefore, the said termination for punishing the petitioner in the garb of an order simplicitor has been passed which is against the decision of Supreme Court in (1999) 1 JT (SC) 396 : (AIR 1999 SC 983) (Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose, National Centre for Basic Science, Calcutta , Where the termination was found to be stigmatic and the inquiry officer had found the allegations against writ petitioner to be of serious nature which was a foundation of the termination order was said to have been passed without a regular departmental inquiry and the order simplicitor was said to be founded on misconduct and was stigmatic and was liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner the principles Lald down in Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) was in consonance to the decision of Supreme Court in its earlier decision AIR 1984 SC 636 (Anoop Kumar Jalswal v. Govt. of India) .;