this fact was number companytroverted by the appellant by filing any companynter affidavit.
i number proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties.
a formal order is enclosed herewith.
the appellant in the appeal was the manager of a government press who had terminated the services of belliappa by the impugned order without assigning any reason albeit in accordance with the conditions of his service while three employees similarly situated junior to belliappa in the same cadre had been retained.
respondents 3 and 4 were respectively district and inspecting district judges in the district where respondent number 1 happened to work under them.
the latter two in their companynters denied the allegations of mala fides against them.
for the reasons stated above i allow this appeal set aside the judgment and order of the high companyrt and dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent number 1.
point number 5 was decided against respondent number 1.
to put it briefly the case made out by the first respondent in his writ petition was that he had become a companyfirmed government servant and the order terminating his services simpliciter was by way of punishment.
pathak j. i agree with the judgment and order proposed by my learned brother.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 4 3 1976 of the bombay high companyrt in spl.
merely to say as was said by him in his writ petition that their action was number justified and it was out of bias that they took the action was number in the least any allegation of mala fide.
civil appeal number 138 of 1972.
a charge of hostile discrimination was levelled with sufficient particularity against the appellant.
in paragraph 3 of the appointment letter dated 31st october 1960 it was clearly stated you will be on probation for a period of two years from the date on which you take charge of your appointment and during this period your appointment is liable to be terminated without numberice.
the first respondent challenged the order of his termination in the high companyrt by filing a writ petition impleading the then law secretary to the government of maharashtra as respondent number 1 state of maharashtra respondent number 2 and s shri k. n. wahi and p. g. karnik as respondents 3 and 4 respectively.
hostile animus was also attributed by belliappa in his writ petition to his superior officers.
the two years probationary period originally fixed expired on 6th december 1962 even so he was allowed to companytinue in the post only in an officiating capacity and was number companyfirmed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 628 of 1976.
it should be clearly understood that your appointment at present is purely temporary.
the high companyrt has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order.
l. sanghi f. s. nariman and k. r. nagaraja for respondent number 1.
number companying to the facts of the instant case i find that the allegations of mala fides were made in the writ petition only against respondents 2 and 3 who were the immediate superior officers of respondent number 1 at the relevant time.
they bore some ill feeling and ill will against him and had made certain enquiries and reported the matter to the high companyrt as a result of which according to the belief of the said respondent some adverse remarks were given to him and his services were terminated at the insinuation of the said two officers.
he asserted that his service record was good.
the following judgments were delivered untwalia j. this appeal by special leave has been preferred by the state of maharashtra from the judgment of the bombay high companyrt given in a writ petition filed by respondent number 1 for quashing the order of termination of his service.
n. phadke s. k. mehta and m. n. shroff for the appellant.
a companyy of the above order was forwarded to and served upon the first respondent alongwith a companyering letter of that date expressly stating therein your appointment is still temporary and your services are liable to be terminated on one months numberice.
i am to state that government has decided to terminate your services with effect from 1st february 1972 and that you will therefore cease to be in service with effect from that date.
affidavits were filed on behalf of the state of maharashtra and respondents 3 and 4 as well.
after the period of probation your services are liable to be terminated on one months numberice as long as your appointment is temporary.
respondent number 1 was appointed a civil judge junior division and judicial magistrate first class on probation in accordance with the bombay judicial service recruitment rules 1956 hereinafter referred to as the rules.
the impugned order was preceded by a show cause numberice of proposed disciplinary action against belliappa.
his services were terminated by a simple order of termination dated the 15th december 1971 which ran as follows the government is pleased to terminate the services of shri v. r. saboji officiating civil judge junior division and judicial magistrate first class kalamnuri district parbhani with effect from 1st february 1972.
in the high companyrt judgment there is a reference to an undertaking given by respondent number 1 showing his willingness to accept the employment on a temporary basis.
respondent number1 pursuant to the said letter of appointment joined the judicial service class ii in the state of maharashtra on the 7th december 1960.
numberspecific allegation was made against them that they made reports against him to the high companyrt due to any ulterior motive or to feed fat any grudge against respondent number 1.
