S. P. KHARE, J. - (1.)This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23-1-1997 of the respondent No. 2 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
(2.)It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as driver as contingency employee by order dated 31-1-1996 by respondent No. 2 District and Sessions Judge, Morena, and then he was appointed in the regular pay scale by order dated 6-11-1996. He was working at Morena. He was transferred to Sheopurkalan on 2-12-1996 and his services were terminated by order dated 23-1-1997 within three months of his regular employment.
(3.)The petitioner's case is that in the termination order (Annexure A-10) it is mentioned that his "services were no longer required" and therefore these are being terminated. But this is factually incorrect as the post of driver still exists. After the filing of the return the petitioner has pleaded in his rejoinder that if the services have been terminated on the ground of "unsatisfactory work and conduct" then it was necessary to hold a departmental inquiry giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is said that the order is punitive and therefore, it is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.