G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) ORDER of termination of service passed by the Managing Director of the Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. (for short the respondent) is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner's prayer is that the impugned order be quashed and he be ordered to be reinstated in service.
(2.) FACTS which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner was appointed as a Record Keeper in the service of the respondent-Bank by an order dated April 30, 1990 (Annexure P- 1 ). He was placed on probation for a period of two years, which could be extended by a further period of one year. After the petitioner had served for about a year and four months, the impugned order Annexure P-4 came to be issued by the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank terminating his service on the ground that he has not been found suitable. Immediately before the passing of the order of termination of service, petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation about his work and conduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation on July 13, 1991 and according to him without taking into consideration his explanation, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank terminated his service. Petitioner has questioned the impugned order on the ground that though innocuously worded the order of termination of his service is stigmatic in character. His plea is that the foundation of termination of his service lies in the allegations of bad conduct and behaviour and not unsatisfactory performance. According to the petitioner the act of the Dy. General Manager (Administration) in calling his explanation for bad conduct and behaviour together with the averments made in para 3 of the reply clearly show that termination of service is based on the allegations of misconduct. Petitioner's assertion is that before issuing the impugned order of termination of service, the respondent-Bank did not hold any enquiry in accordance with the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have defended the impugned order by asserting that termination of service of the petitioner was due to his unsatisfactory performance and such termination of service cannot be equated with termination of service by way of punishment.;