Therefore, dispensing with the inquiry the companycerned authority decided to terminate him from service after giving him one months salary instead of one months numberice.
The Tribunal accepted this plea referring to the original file which was produced and the title of the order.
Legality of the order was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
The respondent was working as a Peon in the establishment of Director, Town Planning, Akola.
In the order dated 7.5.1986 fifteen charges of misconduct were referred to.
The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Amravati, Division Amravati, passed the order indicating therein that the various acts of the respondent clearly demonstrated his unsuitability and the reasons as to why it would number be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as is referred to in clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution.
After creation of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal.
The order of termination was passed dispensing with inquiry in terms of Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
It was numbered that he was in police custody from 30.4.1986 to 8.5.1986.
The only ground taken by respondent before the Tribunal in support of the petition was that the reasons for dispensing with departmental inquiry were number recorded prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 7.5.1986 and, in fact, it had been recorded after the passing of the impugned order.
All the employees of the office were terrified due to his horrible acts and possibility his resorting to tumult and terrify members of the staff after release from police custody cannot be ruled out and suspension would number be an effective means to check his unlawful activities.
An order of termination was passed taking numbere of several acts of mis companyduct by the respondent.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, thereby upholding the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
