S.RAFAT ALAM, SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ. - (1.) THIS special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment/order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 27.7.1999, dismissing Civil Misc,. Writ Petition No. 3869 of 1989 of the petitioner-appellant.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. It appears that the petitioner-appellant was working as Driver in the respondents' University on ad hoc basis. It further appears that the ad hoc appointment was made for a period of six months, which was renewed from time to time. However, in respect of certain charges the University decided to hold an enquiry against him. Consequently, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, it appears that the University, in view of the fact that the petitioner-appellant was a temporary employee, did not proceed with the enquiry and revoked the order of suspension and decided to dispense with his services, being a temporary employee. Aggrieved petitioner-appellant challenged the impugned order of termination in the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide order under appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner-appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was working as Peon since 1978 and was promoted as Driver vide order dated 4.1.1982 and since then he was continuously working on the said post. He was also allowed various increments, as and when fell due. Therefore, after working on the aforesaid post for such a long time, he could not have been terminated by the order of termination simplicitor passed by the respondents impugned in the writ petition. He further submits that the foundation of the order being alleged misconduct fortified from the fact that the petitioner-appellant was also placed under suspension, the order of termination simplicitor, in fact, is a penal order terminating the services of the petitioner-appellant by way of punishment without holding any enquiry and therefore, vitiated in law and the Hon'ble Single Judge, having failed to consider this aspect of the matter, has erred in law.;