- (1.) HEARD . Perused the impugned order Annexure -1 by which the petitioner's services were terminated. In the impugned order. it has been mentioned that the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation and thus employer had lost confidence in the employee.
(2.) THE contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that these remarks in Annexure -1 amount to stigma and unless a disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner, the termination of the service on that account is bad and inoperative. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. : (1987)ILLJ107SC . We have gone through the decision and find that the case in our hand is squarely covered by the decision rendered there in.
(3.) IN the result, we allow the write petition and set a side the impugned order Annexure -l dated 26 4 -1985 by which the petitioner's services were terminated. Respondents are directed to further with reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner will get back wages at 50 percent. No order as to costs.;