Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition against an order of termination passed on 16.10.2000 by the respondent No. 2, which has been confirmed in appeal by the respondent No. 4 on 21.11.2002.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner who was class IV employee appointed by the Executive Officer, therefore his services could have been terminated only by an order passed by the Executive Officer under the provisions of Sections 75 and 76 of the U P. Municipalities Act, which reads as under: "75. Appointment of permanent inferior staff. - Except as otherwise provided, the Executive Officer shall appoint servants carrying scales of pay lower than the lowest scale of pay referred to in Section 74 : Provided that in case there is no Executive Officer, the said appointments shall be by the President. 76. Punishment and dismissal of permanent inferior staff Except as otherwise provided, the Executive Officer, and where there is no Executive Officer, the President may dismiss, remove or otherwise punish servants of the board, or terminate the services of probationers, (referred to in Section 75) subject to their right of appeal, except in the case of the termination of the service of a probationer, to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed."
(3.) He has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the President despite the fact that the Executive Officer was present in the respondent Nagar Palika.;