- (1.) OM Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned orders (Annexures-III and IV) passed by respondent No. 1 directing res pondent No. 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner. In relief clause (a) Annexure-H is mentioned instead of Annexure-III. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, in fact seeks quashing of Annexture-III and not Annexure-II.
(2.) BY the impugned orders dated 10-12-1986 Annexures-III and IV, respondent No 1 simply directed respondent No. 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner, as in his opinion, the petitioner did nor discharge his duties at all (sic ). The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 is the appointing authority of the petitioner and he alone is competent to terminate the services of the petitioner and unless an order is passed by respondent No. 2, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated and that interference by respondent No 1 in this matter is wholly illegal. No. termination order is said to have been passed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents so far. Sri M. S. Negi appearing for the respondents has withdrawn saying that he has no instruction from the respondents.
(3.) ON these facts the petition is disposed of finally with the obser vation that unless the services of the petitioner are terminated by the com petent authority in accordance with law, he will continue in service. Petition disposed of. .;