S.H.A. Raza and S.R. Alam, JJ. - (1.) The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply to the question as to whether the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner simpliciter amounts to order of termination.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kant pressed, strongly urged this Court to delve into the foundation of the order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the order has been camouflaged into an order of termination slmplicitor, when actually it is in the nature of an order of punishment.
(3.) Before dealing with the question mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, it will be relevant to consider the factual matrix of the case, in short compass, as set out in the writ petition, as well as in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Prosecuting Officer, which in brevity be referred to as the A.P.O. by means of the order dated 20.1.1976 passed by the respondent No. 1. The order of appointment indicates that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for a year only meaning thereby that it was a tenure appointment. Subsequent orders also indicate such a tenure appointment for a year only and was extended from time to time till 12th December, 1979, when the services of the petitioner were terminated by an Innocuous order.;