AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble P.C. Verma, J.—Heard Sri Pulak Agarwal and Sri Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents.
The Petitioner was appointed on 18.07.1994 on ad-hoc basis on temporary post of Assistant Teacher and her services were extended for further periods. Her services were terminated by the impugned order dated 01.10.1997, contained in annexure No. 15 to the writ petition. The ground of challenge is that she was not given any notice and opportunity of hearing though the charge of misconduct and indiscipline was the basis of termination order. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, the Apex Court has held that the appointing authority may take a lenient view and may drop the disciplinary proceedings and pass the order of termination. Here the termination order is simpliciter. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) the impugned order of termination cannot be said illegal.
The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.