R.V.Sharama vs Chief Medical Officer,Kanpur Nagar & Ors.

V. M. Sahai, J.—The petitioner was appointed as midwife on 17680. The services of the petitioner has been terminated by order dated 281185. The petitioner challenged the termination order by means of the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Satish Chaturvedi urged that the service of the petitioner who was a temporary employee has been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work in pursuance of notice dated 151085 which constitutes foundation for terminating the service of the petitioner, therefore, the termination order is violative of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on a recent decision of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, 1999 (2) SCC 21 : (1999) 1 UPLBEC 265 (SC).

The learned standing Counsel Sri S.P. Pandey argued that the termination order is termination simpliciter and does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. Termination of service on the ground of unsatisfactory work can be a motive for taking action against the petitioner but it cannot be said to be the foundation. He relied on the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) and other decisions of the apex Court, State of U.P. v. KaushalKishore Shukla, 1991 (D SCC 691 and Trivedi Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P., 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 524.

The service of temporary employee can be dispensed'' with by the employer if his work is unsatisfactory by giving one month notice. Merely because the employer has intimated the employee the fact that his work is unsatisfactory cannot be treated to be a foundation on the basis of which services of the petitioner has been terminated. Such an information to the employee after assessing his work can only held too be motive for terminating his service. The apex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra), laid down:

"...........the termination of service of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactory will not be punit as much as the above facts arc merely the motive and not ire foundation. The reason why they are the motive is that I he assessment is not done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the officer."

By letter dated 151085 the respondents informed the petitioner that her achievement under the family planning scheme for thceyear 198586 till September should have been 18 whereas it was complete her tang month otherwise hi minified. The quest discretion is whether (he employer can be respondents by not petitioner to respondents on 28her service Every national scheme and she was warned to it by the end of the :r services may be foron that arises for con:r such information by held to be the foundation for termination of service. The gave a chance to the are and complete her large. She failed to achieve the target. The order terminated player has a right to asks the performance of his employee. Where the employer after assessment of the work of the employee decides not to continue the tempo satisfactory work say servant due to a decision of the employer will be motive for termination and not foundation. The petitioner was a temporary employee. Her service has been terminated by a simplicity order of termination without casting any stigma. The termination order any error.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.