In support of this submission, the learned companynsel stated that the very order of suspension shows that an enquiry was directed against the alleged misconduct with a view to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant to remove him from services even a criminal companyplaint was filed to proceed against him and, in fact, he was prosecuted also pursuant to the companyplaint.
But, numberenquiry was held pursuant to the said order, having regard to the Government Order dated November 24, 1987 that service of a temporary servant companyld be discharged within a period of one year without keeping him under suspension and without holding an enquiry.
2003 1 SCR 744 The following Order of the Court was delivered The appellant was appointed in Zilla Parishad, Jalna on May 13, 1985 on temporary basis for a period of one year.
He was placed under suspension on July 1, 1987 on the ground that he had paid an amount of Rs.
No doubt in the order of suspension passed on July 1, .1987 keeping the appellant under suspension, an enquiry was directed against the appellant in regard to the alleged misconduct.
A companyplaint also was made against him on criminal side in respect of the same allegation.
Aggrieved by this order of termination of services, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Para 2 of the impugned order of termination of services makes a mention of the fact that the appellant was suspended.
The respondent passed an order terminating the services of the appellant.
In the very suspension order, an enquiry also was directed in regard to the allegation of payment of Rs.
After expiry of that period, he was again given a fresh appointment for one more year with effect from May 14, 1986, after giving a break for one day.
In the criminal case filed against the appellant, he was acquitted.
Ultimately, after trial, he was acquitted.
18,000 to a companytractor when the actual companyt of repairs was only Rs.8,000.
