- (1.) Challenging the order dated 11.5.1987 and for consequential benefits, the present writ petition was filed.
(2.) According to the Petitioner, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed by order dated 1.9.1986 with effect from 25.4.1986 and, in fact, the Petitioner was working since 25.4.1986. The Petitioner's service was terminated by order dated 11.5.1987 at Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The Petitioner complained of arbitrary action of the Respondents in the matter of his termination and that the persons junior to the Petitioner including one B.N. Sachan, have been retained in service.
(3.) The Respondents filed counter-affidavit with the contention that the Petitioner's service was dispensed with by a simple order of discharge and for passing such order, the grounds have been stated in the counter affidavit which included the grounds that the Petitioner was not suitable for the post, there were reports of inefficiency against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was in the habit of going on leave without proper sanction not even making any leave application.;