- (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment in respect of both the appellants, who were discharged from service while on probation vide termination order dated 5.10.1981. They were serving as Chaukidars (Watchmen) in the respondent - Central Warehousing Corporation.
(2.) THE termination during the period of probation came to be challenged in two writ petitions that have given rise to these appeals wherein interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner -appellants on 18.11.1981. They continued in service thereafter on the basic pay that they were receiving, by virtue of the said interim orders. The writ petition however came to be dismissed in default on 3.8.09 but was again restored on 2.2.10. The appellant -Pawan Kumar Nigam after restoration does not appear to have been continued in service but Gurcharan was continued till dismissal of the petition. Thereafter, the writ petitions were ultimately heard and dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25.9.2014.
(3.) THERE is yet another fact which deserves mention namely that during the pendency of the writ petition, a direction was issued to consider the representation of the appellants for recalling the termination order that was also rejected by the respondent - authority on 28.1.2014. The said order was also assailed before the learned single Judge by way of an amendment. The learned single Judge upheld the termination of the appellants as being valid and not suffering from any infirmity hence these two appeals. The background of the dispute has already been narrated by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment but to recapitulate the facts for the purpose of these appeals, a repetitive narration of some facts is necessary.;