An appeal was filed by the appellant, and an Appellate Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal by its judgement and order dated March 28.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has taken us through the record and has endeavored to show that the appellant had discharged his duties ably and with integrity, and there was numberreason for terminating his services.
2480 of 1977 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.77 of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No.
Various particulars were set forth in the special leave petition filed in this Court in support of that assertion.
The first companytention is that the order terminating the appellants services was passed mala fide, the second is that on the expiry of the period of probation the appellant must be deemed to have been companyfirmed, and inasmuch as his services have been terminated without companyplying with clause 2 of Article 311 the order is invalid.
1977 Three points have been raised before us in this appeal.
even as a probationer, was entitled to be heard before his services were terminated.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellant in the Gujarat High Court challenging an order terminating his services.
On the first companytention, the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Bench examined the material on the record and came companycurrently to the companyclusion that the allegation of mala fide was without foundation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the termination of his services, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat, but by his judgment and order dated April 21, 1976 a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
The appellant was appointed to the post of Sales Tax Officer by an order dated March 22, 1972.
During the hearing of the special leave petition this Court directed the State Government to file a specific affidavit relating to the facts alleged in the writ petition regarding a companyfidential enquiry initiated by the Government.
N. Karanjawala 2nd P.H Parekh for the appellant.
The order recited that the appointment was on probation for a period of two years.
The period of two years expired, and the appellant companytinued in service and numberorder was made companyfirming his appointment.
N. Phadke, S.C. Patel and R.N. Poddar for the respondents.
On March 31, 1975 the appellants services were terminated.
232 of 1976.
