- (1.) HEARD the petitioner -appellant appearing in person. Shri Rajeev Gupta, Special Counsel, High Court appears for the respondents.
(2.) THIS Special Appeal is reported to be beyond time by 668 days. The delay has been explained on the ground of operation carried out on petitioner's sister, who is alleged to suffering from brain tumour. It is stated in para -7 of the affidavit accompanying the stay application that she is still under treatment. Further it is stated in para 10 that in July, 2011 the petitioner was also operated for Hernia and was advised rest for six months.
(3.) IN our view the delay has been sufficiently explained on the ground of operations and hospitalisation of the petitioner's sister and petitioner himself. The delay is accordingly condoned and the matter was heard. The petitioner was engaged as daily waged Class IV employee in the High Court at Allahabad on 19.9.1997. On 30.10.2000 he was ceased to work. He filed a Writ Petition No.2258 of 2001 to reinstate him and to permit him to work as Class IV employee and to pay salary, whenever it falls due. The writ petition was dismissed on 12.9.2002 on the ground that though on the facts set out it was clear that there were several complaints against the petitioner, after considering the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner and the case law relating to termination of services of temporary employee, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Learned Single Judge held: - "It is well settled that if the motive for terminating the services of a temporary employee is an act of misconduct as distinguished from its foundation there is no illegality in the order of termination of services of a temporary employee but if the misconduct constitutes the foundation for the termination then enquiry is a prerequisite. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioner was a daily wage employee. He was made to cease work. From the reports reference of which has been made above it is clear that the petitioner's services were not terminated on account of any specific misconduct but upon the ground that there were complaints against him. Where the employer chooses not to enquire into the truth of the allegation made in the complaint but terminates his services by a simpliciter order as there are complaints against him and he does not want to retain such a person in service without bothering to know the truth of the allegations, the order of termination is not founded on misconduct. Shri K.R. Sirohi, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand relies upon the following decisions: 1. Bharat Lal vs. State of UP and others,1996 AllLJ 882 2. State of UP and others vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 1 SCC 691 3. Commodore Commanding Southern Naval Area, Cochin vs. V.N. Rajan., 1981 AIR(SC) 965 In State of UP vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla it was held that termination by a simpliciter order in terms of the contract of service and Rules even after preliminary enquiry of termination simpliciter without casting stigma or disclosing penal consequence against an employee was not illegal. In the case of Commodore Commanding Southern Naval Area, Cochin the similar view was taken. The order of termination of the petitioner's services was not founded on misconduct even through the allegations against him may have formed the motive for terminating his services. It was open to the Registrar General to have granted approval in such a case to the termination of the services of the petitioner. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Dt.12.9.2002 Sd/ - Janardan Sahai, J.";