Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) No. 5415 of 2006 dated 27th February, 2015, whereby, prayer of the respondent for getting salary for the period running from 2004 to 2010 has been appreciated and the matter has been remitted to the appellant for passing a fresh order. It has also been observed in the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge that the respondent (original petitioner) is entitled for consideration for reinstatement into the services. Against this order, the original respondent has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent (original petitioner) was appointed on 21st August, 2011 as Medical Officer on probation for one year, which was subject to the confirmation and, thereafter, he was not confirmed and continued as such. Regular evaluation of his performance was going on and it was not found satisfactory and, hence, his services have been terminated vide order dated 17th August, 2004. The said order is annexed at Annexure -3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. The reasons stated in the order is that the performance and conduct of this respondent was not at all satisfactory. There was also no positive Police Verification Report and, hence, after careful consideration of all the relevant aspects, the appellant has decided that the services of the respondent (original petitioner) are no longer required and, therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect under Regulation 12 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of termination is termination simplicitor, whereas, the learned Single Judge has appreciated the same as punitive termination. Moreover, there is erroneous affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ petition and the order of termination which was termination simplicitor was made termination punitive by the counter affidavit. In fact, the reasons given in the counter affidavit are of no help when the order of termination is clearly narrating the reasons for termination. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of termination which is at Annexure -3 appears to be a termination simplicitor, but, looking to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition, the correct reasons for termination of services of the respondent (original petitioner) have been brought on record and if we see the reasons, the termination of services is punitive termination and that too without giving any show cause notice, without holding any inquiry and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the respondent. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons:;