V.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as mid-wife on 17.6.1980. The services of the petitioner has been terminated by order dated 28.11.1985. The petitioner challenged the termination order by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Satish Chaturvedi urged that the service of the petitioner who was a temporary employee has been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work in pursuance of notice dated 15.10.1985 which constitutes foundation for terminating the service of the petitioner, therefore, the termination order is violative of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, 1999 (2) SCC 21.
(3.) The learned standing counsel Sri S. P. Pandey argued that the termination order is termination simpliciter and does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. Termination of service on the ground of unsatisfactory work can be a motive for taking action against the petitioner but it cannot be said to be the foundation. He relied on the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) and other decisions of the Apex Court State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 and Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U. P., 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 524.;