K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition challenges the order of the chairman, Prathama Bank, Moradabad, dated March 13, 1982, terminating him from service. The order reads : "I, in exercise of my powers vested in me under Regulations No. 8.3 (a) of Prathama Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 hereby terminate your services with immediate effect."
(2.) The petitioner's case was that the applications were invited for the Branch Manager, Prathama Bank in March, 1979. The petitioner was called for interview in pursuance of his application and, thereafter, on being, found suitable was selected for appointment as Branch Manager on 10th July, 1978. After undergoing training, the petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in the Bank on May 10, 1979 with effect from 15th April, 1979. He was placed on one year probation. Even after the expiry of one year, tire petitioner's term of probation was not extended. He continued to function as a Probationary Officer. Although the petitioner stood confirmed automatically since the term of his probation had not been extended but illegally he was asked by the Bank authorities to appear for interview before the Board on 11.4.1981. He complied with the direction. Subsequently, through a letter dated 14th April, 1981, he was informed that the Interview Committee had not found him suitable to confirm in the bank service. Consequently the probation was extended for a period of six months. Again through the latter dated 2.12. 1981, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the interview committee on 12.12.1981 for the purpose of being judged his suitability for confirmation. The petitioner complied with the direction. But instead of confirming him, the Syndicate Bank informed him through the letter dated 30th December, 1981 that the Committee had decided to give another opportunity to improve, hence, the period of probation was extended for four months i.e. upto 15.2.1982. After 15.2.1982, the petitioner received a letter dated Mach 13, 1982 from the Chairman intimating him that his service had been terminated with imediate effect under Regulation 8.3 (3).
(3.) By this petition, the validity of termination order has been challenged.;