AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash, J.—The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned orders (AnnexuresIII and IV) passed by respondent No. 1 directing respondent No. 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner. In relief clause (a) AnnexureH is mentioned instead of AnnexureIII. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, in fact seeks quashing of AnnextureIII and not AnnexureII.
By the impugned orders dated 10121986 AnnexuresIII and IV, respondent No 1 simply directed respondent No. 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner, as in his opinion, the petitioner did nor discharge his duties at all (sic). The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 is the appointing authority of the petitioner and he alone is competent to terminate the services of the petitioner and unless an order is passed by respondent No. 2, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated and that interference by respondent No 1 in this matter is wholly illegal.
No. termination order is said to have been passed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner.
No counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondents so far. Sri M. S. Negi appearing for the respondents has withdrawn saying that he has no instruction from the respondents.
On these facts the petition is disposed of finally with the observation that unless the services of the petitioner are terminated by the competent authority in accordance with law, he will continue in service.